HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-00-0992it
J-00-956
10/24/00
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO
THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH METRO-MIAMI COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ("MMCDC"), A FLORIDA
NOT -FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, TO CONVEY AND
DISPOSE OF CITY -OWNED PARCELS LOCATED AT
1700 NORTHWEST 14TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON "EXHIBIT A" ATTACHED
HERETO, CONTINGENT UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND
CONDITIONS; FURTHER DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL OTHER
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR CLOSING ON
SAID PROPERTY, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY.
WHEREAS, the property located at 1700 Northwest 14th Avenue,
Miami, Florida, was purchased by the -City of Miami ("City") with
Housing Bond Funds approximately twenty years ago for the
development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Commission's desire to increase
homeownership in the City and to expedite the process of
developing affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation,
a Florida not -for profit corporation, has agreed to pay the fair
ATTACHMENTAl If IV
CMI
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF,
NOV 1 6 2000
Resolution No
0 - 9
•
market value of the property in the amount of $1,045,000, less
the cost of cleaning -up the parcel within a twenty-four month
period after executing a contract for said purposes;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized'I and
directed to execute an agreement, in- a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, with Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation
("MMCDC"), a Florida not -for profit corporation, to convey and
dispose of City -owned parcels located at 1700 Northwest 14th
Avenue, Miami, Florida, as legally described on "Exhibit A,"
contingent upon the following terms and conditions:
A. Construction shall commence within twenty-four
(24) months from the date of contract execution or
the subject parcels shall revert back to the City
of Miami.
B. At the end of the twenty-four month period, MMCDC
shall pay $1,045,000, less cost of clean-up as
approved by the Miami -Dade Department of
Environmental Resources Management.
C. No other default stipulations shall be made.
1� The herein authorization is further subject to compliance with all
requirements that may be imposed by the City Attorney, including but not
limited to those prescribed by applicable City Charter and Code
provisions.
Page 2 of 3 u O— 9192
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby directed and
authorized' to execute all other necessary documents required
for closing on said property, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.3/
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of November , 2000.
ATTEST:
JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR
In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the Mayor did not indicate approval of
this I,:,�gislation by signing it in the designated place pro idsd, s 4id legixl
becomes effective with the elapse of ten (10) day orn t I ' to of Commissi '
regarding same, without the Mayor eyVr is 4 a to_��%
City Clerk
WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
OwO7�APPR AS -F
7�77'A
DRO VI
CTTO
W4815:BSS
CORRECTNESSt,
J.
3� If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at
the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted.
If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective
immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission.
Page 3 of 3 q�
6 �' 9 zj
` 2
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
1700 Northwest 14 Avenue
Miami, Florida
Tract B
VENEGO SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof as record in Plat Book 117, at
Page 20, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida
W4815
' ri
"EXHIBIT A" U 0 - ij
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA2
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Carlos Gimenez DATE: October 27, 2000 FILE:
City Manager
SUBJECT: District 4 — Item B
(October 26, 2000)
FROM: TOTIl a O REFERENCES:
Commissioner ENCLOSURES:
This memorandum serves to remind you that during the meeting of October 26, 2000,
District 4 — Item B (attached) was deferred to the meeting to be held on November 16,
2000. The administration was directed to include specific documentation in the agenda
back-up materials, and to schedule the item immediately after the Consent Agenda.
-� -
:_.3
Cc: Agenda Office o
Q®- 99-
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ro : The Honorable Mayor and Members of the DATE : NOV 13 2000 FILE
City Commission
FROM
SUBJECT: Disposal of City Owned Parcel at
1700 N.W. 14 Avenue
REFERENCES: City Commission Agenda
November 16, 2000
ENCLOSURES:
At its meeting of October 26, 2000, the City Commission directed the Administration reschedule
an item for the November 16, 2000 meeting relating to the disposal of a City owned parcel at
1700 N.W. 14 Avenue., This property was purchased in 1984 with housing bond funds with the
intent of developing housing opportunities at this location.
Subsequent to the City's acquisition of the property, the City Commission adopted Resolution
No. 87-93 January 22, 1987 that designated CODEC, Inc. to develop a 96 unit condominium
project on the parcel. However, prior to the commencement of this project, it was determined
that there were significant environmental issues that had to be addressed prior to any
development of this .site. As a result of the contamination at this •location, the property has
remained undeveloped. Since the City assumed control of the Civic Center parcel, there have
been numerous inquiries over the years regarding the status and potential development of the
site.
At its meeting of November 16, 1999, the City Commission approved Motion 99-897 that
authorized and directed the City Manager to negotiate an agreement with Mr. Tomas E. Diego,
President of the Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation, for the development of an
affordable housing project at the 1700 N.W. 14 Avenue site. The motion included the following
stipulations:
A.) Required the developer to pay fair market value for the property;
B.) Required the developer to clean up the property;
C.) Required development to occur within a time certain.
Based on this authorization, the Department of Asset Management has been negotiating with the
Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation to reach a final agreement regarding the
sale of this property. However, in a letter dated September 21 (copy attached), the Metro -Miami
Community Development Corporation expressed its concerns regarding certain issues relating to
the sales agreement that were later addressed in a letter from the City Manager to the Metro -
Miami Community Development Corporation dated October 24, 2000 (copy attached). These
issues focused on the following conditions:
A.) Sales price - The City received two (2) appraisals on the property and
determined the fair market value price to be the rounded average of the
two (2) appraisals, or $1,100,000 ($1,045,000 and $1,150,000 divided by
two). The Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation contends
that the City Commission approved a sales price of $1,045,000.
B.) Deposit - The City typically requires a deposit of 10% on sales
transactions. The developer suggests that the deposit should be held at a
minimum, identifying "perhaps $100.00."
C.) Default — In its October 24`h letter, the Administration states that the
default terms are negotiable and it would accept "any reasonable
alternative schedule" as proposed by the Metro -Miami Community
Development Corporation.
D.) In its October 24`h letter, the Administration states that an agreement had
been reached and the terms are clearly.defined in section C on page 4 of
the Purchase and Sale agreement.
At the October 26, 2000 City Commission, this item was included on the agenda under District 4
as Item B. However, the item was deferred and the Administration was directed to bring the
item back at the November 16, 2000 meeting for consideration.
While the disposal of the city owned parcel at 1700 N.W. 14 Avenue to develop the proposed
affordable housing project by the Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation meets the
intended mandate for the use of housing bond funds, the Administration has identified two (2)
potential uses, including:
A.) Disposal of property for the development of an affordable housing
project through a competitive Request for Proposal process
B.) Finalize negotiation for disposal of property to the Metro -Miami
Community with conditions stipulated by the City Commission
In addition, Brownsfield grant opportunities are available from federal and state sources to
resolve environmental issues that exist on the property and it is recommended that the
Administration coordinate with the designated developer to be proactive in seeking government
grants to resolve the contamination issues.
As directed by the City Commission, attached you will find the following back-up
documentation pertaining to this item:
• Minutes from meeting of November 16, 1999 leading to the approval of Motion 99-897
• Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study for Civic Center Property
• Proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement
• Letter from Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation to the City Manager
dated September 21, 2000
• Letter from the City Manager to the Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation
dated'October 24, 2000
• Proposed Resolution prepared by Law Department for Item District 4(B) on the October
26, 2000 City Commission Meeting
f
DB/GCW/DF
May 0o, 12:15 NO.009 P-02
AF�iit ?A�Lk HC r..
AT CIVIC .t ER 9ITEp
W.
170Q'N..,• 14 TIPPLATE TERMS: (A) UkVELOPER WILL PA FAIR
'Ml1RKET .1�1iU$, AN UP PROV41tT.Y 'AND (C) . BUILD NITXIN 1� TIME
r"romsin�9ft;:
Commissioner Regalado: I would like to take an issd®. It's
concerning a proposed multi -gamily building on the Civic Center
side at 170.0 Northwest 14th Avenue. And what we have here is for
the four of the fifth time -- and this is Commissioner Gort's
district. But it's a group of very- respected community leaders
that have offered the City, first of all, to clean up and then pay
the City the rest'of the market value property. This is an empty
lot. And, also, _ I was told by Dena, before she left, that they
would agree. to -&-one-year- zere to- begin -construction. So, that --
I think that the administration was leaning towards supporting
that. I don't know, Mr. Manager.
Ms. Laura Billberry: Laura Billberry, Director of Asset
Management. I'm sorry. I'm not aware of that comment you just
made. We had always wanted to do an RPP (RequeaL for Proposal)
for this property, for the development of affordable housing.
Commissioner Regalado: I don't know why you were not aware
because it was said by Dena on the record here. She said that one
year, they would have to start construction and that, according to'
the State Statutes, there was do need for an RFP but there is a
need for construction in that area.
Ms'. Billberry: You are correct in that it's not legally required.
However, the property has been appraised at just over a million
dollars and, depending on the plans, that could be approved by the
State under our Brownsfield Program. There could still be some
value to -- of this properly to,the city, so that's...
Commissioner Regalado: what is the cost of the clean up?
Ms. Billberry: 2t may, vary. It could cost as little as two
hundred and eleven thousand, based on a Phhse II that was done by
EE&G (Evans Environmental & Goo Sciences). -
Commissioner Regalado: OK. If I...
*fir. Thomas Diego: Good evening, Commissioner. My name is Thomas
Diego, 2151 Southwest 21st Terrace. First of all, I wasn't aware
also that Dena had come up with ,one year Lo construct the
property. As you're aware, we've been at this for the Las+:. year.
we've met a couple of times with them and we still haven't been
able to purchase -- I mean, get a hold of property to start design
work -- to do design work and do construction drawings. To do a
building, it might take a little blt more than a year. As part of
the resolution, we asked that you give us two years so we can
start the construction, so we could analyze th• property with the
1 November 16, 1999
TEP May 9'00 12:16 No.009 P.03
construction drawings, with the survey and, then, come up with a
positive building for the neighborhood. On top of that, I'd like
to put on the table that this property was, purchased in 1984, then
sold -- then brought back to the city because of pollution
problems. The property has been staying there for 15 years. was
taken out of the tax roll. You've had to invest money on this
property to, clean it up, to kill vermin, animals that had been
lingering in there, people, trash. We do have a pollution problem
on the property, which we are aware of, and we do want to attack
it with the Brownfield and try to get some cleanup. Although, I
know that we don't have to clean the entire property. Just that
portion where we're going to be building on, if we build on that
portion. Somethihq else that I wa iLed to bring you aware of was
when an appraisal was done on the property, the appraisal was done
in three. parts, ss a d-1 zone, as an R-4 zone and as an R-3 zone.
This is an R-4 zone property and we're not going to change the
zoning on this property., We're going to build according to the
zone. We are going to -- we are proposing to build an affordable,'...,
housing, where people come in that have low income, purchase, .. not,.
rent, not lease but purchase these properties; come into a program
with Miami -Dade County Housing Authority and the City and start.
living and paying their own homes within the City, within the.
Jackson Memorial Hospital, within that neighborhood. Therefore,,:.
based on the appraisal, I notice that there was an appraisal done...
for a million forty-five thousand and that appraisal was going to.,
expire, I believe, 90 days and after the 90 days, it was going to:_
go down to eight hundred and eighty-eight, thousand, based on th®.
City's record or the City's paperwork. we're ready to go. The
only problem that we're having now is that we may lose the people .:
who are interests¢ in financing this project. Again, we've been*.*,,-,
at this for a whole year, year and a quarter now and we really do`
want to try and gat this going. We're not going to purchase the
property. It is a non-profit corporation and what we want. to do
is, we want to help out the City.
Commissioner Regalado: Well, I'm -- for one, I'm ready to put it
to a vote, if the Commission decides, you know, whatever it
decides. But I think, you know, to have that for 14 years without
any construction and to have respected leaders of the community to
back this project, I am very comfortable that- they would build
whatever they feel. And, so, I'd like to move this item to
approve this proposal.
Commissioner Teele:
Vice Chairman Gort:
there's a proposal..
Cor=Lasioner Sanchcz:
Second the motion.
Commissioner Regalado:
that this group...
Vice Chairman Gort:
There's a motion. There's a second. But
What proposal are we talking about?
Tho proposal
that
we're
talking
about
is
Excuse me.
we've
got
to hear
from
the
2 November 16, V 0 -
� ��
T May '00
attorneys.
12:17 No.009 P-04
Mr. Alejandro Vilarello (City Attorney): I'm sorry, Commissioner.
My question just now to the administration was, did they have a
proposal in front of them? And I was advJ3ed that they did not,
so the...
Commissioner Regalado: Well, they gave you.....
Mr. Vilarello: ...appropriate motion...
Comnissioner Regalado: I mean, we remember the last time that we
were... I
Mr. Vilarello: -Well, I'm familiar with the property. But my
suggestion to you is, perhaps the resolution should be a direction
to the City Manager...
Co=n.issioner Regalado: To draft the proposal.
Mr. Vilarello: ...to draft an agreement...
Commissioner: It,egel.ado.:;o....:--That. g be to a fair a�asAl
BY.pu., kra,Qlivpr::zhe:. tee. "'"'`remEwer tFaft Dena . told 6e
the terms. I don't know if you can reach hee.-or ask her.
Mr. Donald Warshaw (City Manager): I'll try to get in touch with
her. My. recollection was that she felt we should go. out, you
know, on an RFP for this piece of property.
Commissioner Regalado:_:. ;_That....wasnIt what t�r�"told�"i shd ,said
that; .. you. know, she` would" ---reed, that7r but�ehe—thought►that--if
this group will pay market"'valuo; -will cltaprup the -pisoe�and .hatie
a_time certain to build,. she would not oppose that. That's...
4"- arahaw : And. I agrpe,.,..if. ,th�K' ll.. pay, - fairf m&rketSx_4.1Aw_ ,a.,nd.,�--
I don't have a problem with that.
Vice Chairman Gort: Your motion is a resolution to instruct the
City Manager to work out a...
Mr. Vilarello: A draft agreement...
Commissioner Regalado: A draft agreement and bring it back..
Vice Chairman Gort: ...resolution and come back to us.
Mr. Vilar911o:. ...and bring ic back to the City Commission.
Vice Chairman Gort: OK.
Commissicner Regalado: OK.
Vice Chairman Gort: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any
3 November 16, 1909
` Q®- �`
TEP May 000 12:17 No.009 P.0S
Jib` erx;' r
further discussion? Being none, all in favor state by saying
"aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Vice Chairman Gort: No nays.. Thank you.
Mr. Diego: Good night and thank you.
The following motion was 'introduced by Commissioner
Regalado, who moved its adoption:
_ 9-997
A NOTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
NUMER 'rO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT' WITH MR.
THOMAS DIEGO � FOR AN Ar1W.M BLL HOU8IKC,,
Ptt=CT TO HE LOCATED AT THE CIVIC
SITE, 1700 N.H. 14 A Hit9E, STIPtT>r+ATI91G "
FOLLOWING TC MS ': (A)
VALEM ,,
i®^ UP PROPERTY AID (C) But=
3 :_,......_._
a1ITHIl� 'R TINE CERTAIN,
....:
Opo hint' seconded_- by Commissioner Teole, the motion was
passed and adopted by the followinq vote:
AYES: Vice Chairman Wiiredo Gort
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Comnissioner Joe Sanchez
Commissioner Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
NAYS: None.
ASSENT: Commissioner Johnny L. Winton.
4 Novembsr 16u 1999
t 00-- 992
* E G
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FEASIBILITY STUDY,
FOR
CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
1700 N.W. 14th AVENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
Prepared For:
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2"" Avenue
Miami, Florida
Prepared By:
EVANS ENVIRONMENTAL & GEOSCIENCES
99 S.E. 5' Street, 4h Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
MAY 1999
EE&G PROJECT No. 0302000563
00- ZYU2
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 - INTRODUCTION..................................................... 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE .....................................................
1.2 BACKGROUND ............................................... 1-1
1.3 PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS .......... 1-2
1.4 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT ...............
2.0 - REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION ................................ 2-1
2.1 POTENTIAL AFFECTED MEDIA EVALUATION ......................... 2-1
2.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ................................ 2-2
2.3 SOIL REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES ` ........................... 2-3
2.4 GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES .................. 2-10
3.0 - SELECTION OF A REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE ...*........................... 3-1
4.0 - CONCLUSION .......................................................... 4-1
TABLES
TABLE 1
TABLE 2
TABLE 3A
TABLE 3B
TABLE 4A
TABLE 4B
APPENDIX
Maximum Concentrations of Compounds Detected In Soil
Maximum Concentrations of Compounds Detected In Groundwater
General Response Actions - Metals -Affected Soil
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation - Metals -Affected Soil
General Response Actions - Groundwater
Remedial Alternatives Evaluation - Groundwater
APPENDIX A Risk Assessment
APPENDIX B Affected -Soil Volume Calculation
00- 9qy2
9 - 0
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The objective of this feasibility study was to develop and evaluate appropriate alternatives for the
remediation of arsenic, barium and lead -affected soil at the Civic Center Property, located at 1700
N.W. 14th Avenue, Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the Property),
and to propose a remedy which will meet the goals of a potential Brownfields Site Remediation
Agreement (BSRA), which is envisioned for this site. The guideline for selection of the remedial
alternative will be to provide a cost effective, technically-implementable remediation strategy that
is protective of human health and the environment. The overall goal of the. remediation is to reduce
the concentrations of compounds of potential concern (COPCs) to below the cleanup target
concentrations set forth in Chapter 62-785 and 62-550, FAC.
1.2 BACKGROUND
The Property is an irregular -shaped lot measuring approximately 128,502 square feet in area. The
site is presently undeveloped and is overgrown with vegetation (primarily tall grass and weeds).
The Property was first developed with residences in the 1930s. A nursery was located on the
northern portion of the site from approximately 1949 to the mid-1980s. The nursery and all
residential structures were cleared from the gite by 1986. The Property has remained unused since
that time. The Property is bounded to the southeast by a small residential housing community, to
the north by a high-rise residential building, to the northeast by a canal, and to the east, south and
west by major right-of-ways.
An environmental consultant, on behalf of a third party, performed environmental assessment and
subsurface testing activities on the Property in December 1989 and February 1990, respectively.
It was determined that previous dumping (glass, charcoal, metals, and concrete) had occurred in
the northeast portion of the Property, resulting in elevated levels of lead and cadmium in the soils.
The consultant described the affected soil area as measuring 270 feet by 130 feet, with a vertical
depth varying up to 4 feet below land surface (BLS). No contaminants were detected in the
groundwater sample collected from this area. The previous consultant noticed that the impacted
soils were underlain by a layer of silty impermeable material which was interpreted to have
minimized the rate of leaching into the groundwater. The previous consultant recommended that
the impacted soils be excavated and replaced with clean fill.
In April 1998, EE&G was retained by the City to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) of the Property. The following environmental concerns were identified during this Phase I
ESA:
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
Historical review indicated that a nursery operated on the northwestern portion of
the Property from approximately 1949.to the mid 1980s. Potential mixing and use.
of pesticides and or herbicides may have affected the soil and/or groundwater
quality at the site.
Previous environmental testing on the Property in 1989 and 1990 indicated the
presence of soils containing elevated, concentrations of cadmium and lead on the
northeastern corner of the Property. These elevated concentrations of metals were
alleged by the previous consultant to be a result of the dumping of waste materials.
Excavation of the impacted soils was recommended; however, according to City of
Miami representatives, this work was never performed.
1.3 PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
EEBG conducted a Phase II ESA of the Property in late 1998 and early 1999. Based on the
assessment activities performed and interpretation of resulting analytical data, the following
conclusions were reached:
• Soil samples collected from the vadose zone contained no significant OVA/FID
readings or evidence of petroleum staining.
• No impacts to the soil or groundwater attributed to the former nursery were detected
on.the northwestern portion of the Property.
• A non-native ash layer was observed to be present across a majority of the eastern
portion of Property.
• Elevated concentrations of total lead, arsenic and barium, likely attributable to this
ash layer, were detected in soil samples collected from the eastern portion of the
Property.
• Horizontal delineation of the ash layer was achieved to the west and southwest.
However, the ash layer appeared to extend to the northern, northeastern, eastern,
and southeastern boundaries of the Property.
• Vertical delineation of the ash layer was inferred by visual inspection of soils in the
soil borings: On average, the ash layer was observed to be located at
approximately 1 to 4.5 feet below land surface (BLS).
• Interpretation of TCLP analyses indicated that metal -affected soil on the eastern
portion of the Property have the potential to leach concentrations above the
groundwater cleanup target levels (GCTLs). However, the concentrations were
below the'hazardous waste criteria; therefore, the soil samples collected and tested
during the Phase li ESA were characterized as a non -hazardous waste.
1.2
0®- 992
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
Elevated concentrations of lead above the GCTLs were detected in groundwater
samples collected from monitoring well TMW-2, TWM-3, and TMW-7. All
concentrations were below the natural attenuation source default concentrations
(NASDCs). It is possible that the total lead detected in the groundwater samples
may be attributed to sediment in the samples.
See Tables 1 and 2 for lists of Compounds of Potential Concern detected in the soil and
groundwater, respectively.
The site -specific groundwater elevation and flow direction was assessed from the October 22, 1998
elevation survey data. The site -specific groundwater elevation is relatively flat, with an estimated
gradient of less than 0.00014 ft/ft towards the southeast. However, the adjacent canal may create
a tidal influence on the groundwater. A summary of the depth to groundwater measurements,
casing elevations and groundwater elevations, are summarized in the Phase If ESA Report
prepared for the Property, dated March 1999.
1.4 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
Based upon the assessment results, EE&G contracted Hazardous Substance and Waste
Management Research (HSWMR) to perform a risk evaluation of the soil and groundwater at the
Property. HSWMR reached the following conclusion:
Sufficient evidence exists to support a proposal for No Further Action with
institutional and/or engineering controls for the Property. Engineering controls could
include an impervious cover. Institutional controls could include preclusion of cover
removal and prohibition of unrestricted groundwater use until such time that soil and
groundwater concentrations are no longer a concern. Other restrictions, like
compaction testing, may preclude building directly over the ash/soil material. If
ash/soil must be removed to meet construction guidelines, it will need to be
disposed of properly.
A copy of the risk assessment is provided in Appendix A.
1.3
00— �ZYZ
.'7
r�
u
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
SECTION 2.0
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
2.1 POTENTIAL AFFECTED MEDIA EVALUATION
The initial step in the remedial alternatives evaluation was the determination of affected media.
Eight different types of potentially -affected media were evaluated:
• Sediment/Soil.
• Groundwater.
• Surface water.
• Liquid waste.
• Sludge.
• Air.
• Structures.
• Solid waste.
Based on the assessment observations and findings, only the following two types of affected media
were considered for this feasibility study:
• SOIL and SOLID WASTE (ASH):
Metal -impacted soil was encountered from 0 to 6 feet BLS. This soil was
located at or above the groundwater table and therefore was considered to
be part of the vadose zone.
Metal -impacted ash was encountered in layers between 1 and 4.5 feet BLS,
and therefore was considered to be part of the vadose zone.
• GROUNDWATER:
Low concentration, lead -affected groundwater was detected in the
northeastern area of the Property. However, the lead detected may be a
result of sediment in the groundwater samples.
Media such as surface water, liquid waste and sludge were not present on the Property. Air was
not affected as the metals have little to no volatility. No structures are present on the Property.
Solid waste (i.e., trash and construction debris) was dumped on the Property, but does not appear
to be affected by the metals, or appear to be a source of contamination to other media.
2-1
Go- 992
0
•
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study IMay 1999
2.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Following identification of the affected media, the next step in conducting a remedial alternatives
evaluation was the establishment of remedial objectives. The remedial action objectives for metal -
affected soil, ash and groundwater included:
• Minimization of the potential for ingestion/direct contact with metal -affected soil and
groundwater having carcinogens and non:carcinogens in excess of referenced
doses.
• Minimization of the potential for inhalation of carcinogens posing excess cancer risk
levels.
• Minimization of the potential for migration (leaching) of constituents from metal -
affected soils that would result in dissolved groundwater constituents in excess of
regulated levels.
• Minimization of the potential for off -site migration of metal -affected groundwater in
excess of GCTLs..
• Restoration of groundwater aquifer to NASDCs, which should eventually lead to
further 'natural" reduction to GCTLs. This objective has been achieved, as no
impacts above the NASDCs were detected.
The primary objective of this feasibility study was to develop and evaluate appropriate alternatives
for the remediation of metals -affected media (i.e., soil, ash and groundwater) at the Property, and
propose a solution that is economically feasible, readily implementable, and meets the approval
of the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).
Based upon the site assessment findings, and the subsequent risk assessment, the following
conclusions were reached with regard to environmental media at the site:
• Soils to a depth of 6 feet BLS show concentrations of metals in excess of direct
exposure SCTLs, with some leachability concerns exist.
• A layer of non-native ash, which contains elevated levels of arsenic, barium and
lead, exists at the Property.
• Low concentrations of lead were detected in groundwater in excess of the Chapter
62-785, FAC, Brownfields GCTLs, in the northeastern portion of the Property.
However, all concentrations were below the NASDCs. Therefore, potable use of
groundwater should be precluded until such time that GCTLs are met.
• Sufficient evidence exists from a risk assessment standpoint to support a proposal
for No Further Action with institutional and/or engineering controls for the Civic
Center site.
2-2
0a-- 992
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
Based upon the above, the evaluation of site -specific data and the proposed future use of the site,
remedial alternatives are discussed and evaluated below based on the following criteria. -
Short -term and long-term environmental impacts.
• Implementability.
• Operation and maintenance requirements.
• Reliability and feasibility.
• Estimated cleanup time and costs.
• Regulatory agency and community acceptance.
2.3 SOIL/ASH REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
EE&G identified the following technically feasible and currently accepted remediation alternatives
for metal -affected 'soil and -ash. General response actions for soil are provided in Table 3A.
Evaluation summaries for each alternative are provided in Table 313.
• No Further Action.
• No Further Action with Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring
• Excavation & Disposal.
• Capping with Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring.
• Solidification with Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring.
The possibility for exposure to the public is moderate, based upon the presence of metal -affected
soils and ash at the land surface in areas, the unsecured nature of the Property and its abandoned
state. Utilities, sidewalks and roads abut every boundary of the parcel. The Property is not located
within a public drinking water wellfield protection area. There are no potable wells in the area and
the use of groundwater in the vicinity for a drinking water source in the future appears unlikely due
to the proximity of the Property to Biscayne Bay. Each of the five, technically feasible alternatives
are discussed in -detail below.
2.3.1 No Further Action Alternative
The no further action alternative would. result in leaving the metal -affected soil and ash in -place.
Considerations include the following:
The metal -affected soil and ash likely will not significantly migrate due to its physical
characteristics under current hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
This alternative poses no short term environmental effects. Long term environmental effects are
minimal provided that, the Property is secured and/or the current hydrogeologic conditions at the
site do not change in such a way as to cause dissolution and/or migration of metals from the soil
and ash. There are no operation and maintenance costs associated with this alternative. This
alternative provides no reliability without institutional and/or engineering controls to ensure no direct
exposure to metal -affected soil underlying the site. This alternative, by itself, is not protective of
human health or the environment, and is therefore less acceptable from a feasibility standpoint.
There are no costs' associated with this alternative. This alternative does not account for future
Property development, which would lead to long-term residency or soil. removal.
2-3
0 0 - 992
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
2.3.2 No Further Action with Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring Alternative
The no further action coupled with institutional/engineering controls and a monitoring alternative
would result in the implementation of the following actions: .
• Establishment of site procedures to prevent direct exposure to metal -affected soil
without appropriate health and safety measures in areas of the site where these
soils and ash have been identified.
• Implementation of title/deed restrictions prohibiting certain construction activities at
the site; or, if necessary, to establish proper techniques for handling and disposal
of affected soils and ash.
• Engineering controls may include design of a non -pervious surface over the
affected soils, and design of a storm water system which prevents discharge into
these areas.
• A prohibition on the use of groundwater for potable or irrigation water for the
Property and adjacent properties to minimize migration and exposure.
• Generation and implementation Af a groundwater monitoring program to ensure that
the metals are not migrating. The program would include quarterly, semi-annual
and/or annual monitoring of designated existing monitoring wells on the Property.
Justification for this alternative is as follows:
The metals will not significantly migrate due to its physical characteristics under
current hydrogeologic conditions at the site and lies well below the ground surface.
The Property will be fenced and/or developed to minimize unauthorized persons
from entering the parcel.
Establishment and observance of site procedures and/or implementation of
title/deed restrictions will minimize direct exposure to metal -affected soil and ash
without the need for additional health and safety measures.
There are no short term environmental effects associated with this alternative. Long term
environmental effects are minimal provided that the physical characteristics of the metal -affected
media and/or the current hydrogeologic conditions at the site do not change in such a way as to
cause dissolution and/or migration of metals. There are no operation. and maintenance costs
associated with this alternative. This alternative, by itself, is moderately protective of human health
and the environment, and is acceptable from a feasibility standpoint when implemented in
conjunction with a limited groundwater quality monitoring program.
Costs associated with this alternative are estimated at $87,000, including the generation of site
procedures to prevent direct exposure to metal -affected soil without appropriate health and safety
measures, and implementation of title/deed restrictions prohibiting certain construction activities
2-4
00-- 002
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
which may result in direct exposure to metal -affected soil without appropriate health and safety
measures. This estimate also includes costs for the design and permitting of engineering plans
for storm water collection and disposal system upgrades and costs for 1 year of monitoring of the
groundwater. Capital costs for surfacing activities and the construction of the storm water
collection and disposal system are not included. Furthermore, this option does not account for the
required proper disposal of any affected soils which may be excavated during development
activities.
2.3.3 Limited Excavation, Disposal & Monitoring Alternative
The excavation of surficial metal -affected soils and ash, coupled with institutional/engineering
controls and a monitoring alternative, would resuit.in the implementation of the following actions:
• Excavation of approximately 6,900 tons of metal -affected media (lead level greater
than 500 ppm and /or arsenic greater than 0.8 ppm) to a maximum of 2-feet BLS
and backfilling with clean, excavated soil and clean fill.
• Establishment of site procedures to prevent direct exposure to metal -affected soil
without appropriate health and safety measures in areas of the site where these
soils and ash have been identified.
Implementation of title/deed restrictions prohibiting certain construction activities at
the site; or, if necessary, to establish �proper. techniques for handling and disposal
of remaining affected soils and ash.
• Engineering controls may include design of a non -pervious surface over the
affected -soils, and design of a storm water system which prevents discharge into
these areas.
• A prohibition on the use of groundwater for potable or irrigation water for the
Property and adjacent properties to minimize migration and exposure.
• Generation and implementation of a post -excavation groundwater monitoring
program. The program would include quarterly monitoring of designated existing
monitoring wells on the Property.
Justification for this alternative.is as follows:
The metals -affected media is not a significant source of dissolved COPCs.
Removal of surficial metals -affected media, in tandem with the establishment of site
procedures to prevent direct exposure institutional, will significantly reduce the
potential for exposure to the public and the environment.
A significant fraction of the metals -affected media (approximately 1/3) will be
removed and properly disposed, reducing future concerns about dissolution and
migration of metals from the Property.
2-5. 0 0- 9 9"
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study Mav 1999
Short term effects associated with this alternative, include construction equipment onsite for soil
excavation, removal and disposal of metals -affected media, dust and potential odor complaints.
Long term environmental effects will be reduced as approximately 1/3 of the metal -affected media
will be removed from the site and reduce the potential for dissolution of COPCs from the soil.
However, long term liability may exist as a result of off -site disposal. There are no operation and
maintenance costs associated with this alternative. This alternative is technically feasible and is
a demonstrated and reliable alternative as it removes the metal -affected media. This alternative
increases protection of human health and the environment, and is technically feasible when
implemented in conjunction with a groundwater quality monitoring program.
Costs associated with this alternative are estimated at approximately $720,000. This estimate
includes costs for the design and permitting of engineering plans for storm water collection and
disposal, and costs for 1 year of groundwater monitoring. However, capital costs for any re-
surfacing activities and the construction of the storm water collection and disposal system are not
included. Furthermore, this option does ,not account for the required proper disposal of any
remaining affected soils which may be excavated during development activities. The costs make
this alternative economically less preferable than the containment alternative.
2.3.4 Complete Excavation, Disposal & Monitoring Alternative
If development of the Property required the complete removal of all metals -affected solid materials
(i.e., soils and ash), then the excavation of these materials, coupled with institutional/engineering
controls and a monitoring alternative would..result in the implementation of the following actions:
Excavation of clean soils overlying the areas of identified metals -affected media,
excavation of approximately 21,800 tons metals -affected media (lead level greater
than 500 ppm and/or arsenic greater than 0.8 ppm) down to the soil/groundwater
interface (approximately 6 feet BLS) and backfilling with clean, excavated soil and
clean fill.
A prohibition on the use of groundwater for potable or irrigation water for the
Property and adjacent properties to minimize migration and exposure.
•. Generation and implementation of a post -excavation groundwater monitoring
program. The program would include quarterly monitoring of designated existing
.monitoring wells on the Property for a period of 1 year.
Justification for this alternative is as follows. -
The metals -affected media is not a significant source of dissolved COPCs.
The metals -affected media will be removed and properly disposed, precluding future
concerns about dissolution and migration of metals from the Property.
Short term effects associated with this alternative, include construction equipment onsite for soil
excavation, removal and disposal of metals -affected media, dust complaints. No long term
environmental effects on the Property would exist as the metal sources will be removed from the
site and reduce dissolved COPCs. However, long term liabilities associated with the off -site landfill
2-6
0®r 992
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
disposal of the metals -affected media would exist. There are no operation and maintenance costs
associated with this alternative. This alternative is technically feasible and is a demonstrated and
reliable alternative as it removes the metal -affected media. This alternative is protective of human
health and the environment, and is technically feasible when implemented in conjunction with a
groundwater quality monitoring program.
Costs associated with this alternative are estimated at $2,030,000. This alternative includes the
implementation of a 1-year groundwater monitoring program, and the design and permitting of
engineering plans for a storm water management system. Capital costs for the construction of the
storm water collection and disposal system are not included. The costs make this alternative
economically less preferable than all other remedial alternatives.
2.3.6 Capping with Institutional/Ennineerina Controls & Monitorina Alternative
The driving force for the costs and outcome of this alternative would be the approval of a Risk
Assessment by the FDEP, leading to No Further Action with Institutional Controls (i.e., deed
restriction, storm water management, etc...). This scenario assumes no removal of arsenic -
affected soil, except in conjunction with site development activities (i.e., building piling caps, storm
water system and utilities excavations. For this scenario, EE&G assumed construction of a high-
rise residential structure similar to the one on the adjacent parcel north of the Property. This would
involve installation of piling caps, which would require proper disposal of all excavated soils with
arsenic concentrations in excess of 0.8 mg/kg concentrations. EE&G estimates that approximately
3,000 tons of non -hazardous soil would have to be removed and disposed for pile cap installation.
This budget estimate does not include the costs associated with paving, storm water management
system installation (approximately $150,000), or excavation of affected soils (other than those
related to construction of piling caps). Furthermore, EE&G assumes that the arsenic -affected
media does not extend below six feet BLS.
Finally, please note that, regardless of the Brownfields Site status, if soils containing arsenic
concentrations in excess of 0.8 mg/Kg (Dade County SCTL) are excavated during development
activities, then they will require proper handling and disposal. Assuming that capping of the
Property with an impermeable cover and building footprint(s) of a high-rise development, coupled
with the institutional/engineering controls and a monitoring alternative, could be performed in
conjunction, with the development of the Property, then the following actions would be expected
during the implementation of this remedial alternative:
Establishment of site procedures to prevent direct exposure to metal -affected soil
without appropriate health and safety measures in areas of the site where soils and
ash have been identified.
Implementation of title/deed restrictions prohibiting certain construction activities at
the site; or, if necessary, to establish proper techniques for handling and disposal
of affected soils and ash.
Excavation and disposal of metals -affected media for the construction of piling caps.
Excavation would be expected to extend down to 6-feet BLS maximum.
2-7
0 0 - 992
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
• Design and construction of an impermeable cap (i.e., concrete) over the areas of
metals -affected soil and ash deposits.
• A prohibition on the use of groundwater for potable or irrigation water for the
Property and adjacent properties to minimize migration and exposure.
• Design for future storm water collection and disposal systems to be constructed in
a manner to prevent the infiltration of storm water through metal -affected soil.
• Generation and implementation of a groundwater monitoring program to ensure that
the metals are not migrating. The program would include quarterly monitoring of
designated existing monitoring wells on the Property.
Justification for this alternative is as follows:
• The metals will not significantly migrate due to its physical characteristics under
current hydrogeologic conditions at the site and lies well below the ground surface.
• The Propertywill be fenced and/or developed to prevent unauthorized persons from
entering the parcel.
• The metal -affected soil and ash at the Property will be covered by an impermeable
cap (i.e., concrete, asphalt),, preventing infiltration of storm water. Storm water
would be routed away from areas where metal -affected media are present.
• Establishment and observance of site procedures and/or implementation of
title/deed restrictions can prevent direct exposure to metal -affected soil and ash
without the need for additional health and safety measures.
Short term environmental effects, include dust and noise nuisances from activities associated with
the construction of the impermeable cap. Long term environmental effects for the Property are
minimal provided that .the physical characteristics of the metal -affected media and/or the current
hydrogeologic conditions at the site do not change in such a way as to cause dissolution and/or
migration of metals. However, long term liabilities associated with the off -site disposal of the
metals -affected media would exist. There are no operation and maintenance costs associated with
this alternative. This alternative, by itself, is moderately protective of human health and the
environment,, and is acceptable from a feasibility standpoint when implemented in conjunction with
a limited groundwater quality monitoring program.
Costs associated with this alternative are estimated at $211,000, including.the generation of site
procedures to prevent direct exposure to metal -affected soil without appropriate health and safety
measures, and implementation of title/deed restrictions prohibiting certain construction activities
which may result in direct exposure to metal -affected soil without appropriate health and safety
measures. This estimate also includes costs for the design and permitting of engineering plans
for storm water collection and disposal system upgrades and costs for 1 year of monitoring of the
groundwater. Capital costs for re -surfacing activities and the construction of the storm water
management system are not included. Furthermore, this option does not account for the required
proper disposal of any remaining affected soils which may be excavated during development.
2-8
Qd-- 9f19
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
2.3.6 Solidification Alternative with Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring
The limited solidification of metals -affected media, coupled with institutional/engineering controls
and a monitoring alternative would result in the implementation of the following actions:
Excavation of metals -affected media, mixing with soil cement and replacement
across the Property. The concrete slurry wall will be placed between 5 and 15 feet
BLS and then backfilled to grade with clean fill, to minimize the off -site migration of
the impact on the northeastern Property boundary. The metal -affected soils
excavated from the soil/groundwater interface will be transported off -site for
disposal.
• Implementation of title/deed restrictions prohibiting certain construction activities at
the site; or, if necessary, to establish proper procedures to protect the solidified
mass.
• A prohibition on the use of groundwater for potable or irrigation water for the
Property and adjacent properties to minimize migration and exposure.
• Ensuring that the future storm water collection and disposal system is constructed
in a manner to prevent the infiltration of storm water through the solidified mass.
• Generation and implementation of a groundwater monitoring program to document
improvement in groundwater quality. The program would include quarterly
monitoring of designated existing monitoring wells on the Property.
Justification for this alternative is as follows:
The metals will migrate due to the solidified media's physical characteristics under
current hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
The Property will be fenced and/or developed to minimize the possibility
unauthorized persons from entering.
Establishment and observance of site procedures and/or implementation of
title/deed restrictions to protect the solidified mass.
Short term effects associated with this alternative include dust and noise nuisance associated with
construction equipment, construction/placement of solidified mass, possible excavation and
removal of limited quantities of metal -affected media. Long term environmental effects are minimal
provided that the physical characteristics of the solidified mass and/or the current hydrogeologic
conditions at the site do not change in such a way as.to cause dissolution and/or migration. There
are no operation and maintenance costs. associated with this alternative, except for 1 year of
groundwater monitoring. This alternative is technically and economically feasible and is a
demonstrated and reliable alternative. This alternative, by itself, is extremely protective of human
health and the environment, and is acceptable from a feasibility standpoint.
2-9
00- 992
EE&G: Remedial, Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
Costs associated with this alternative are $3,730,000, including the excavation and solidification
of 21,800 tons of metal -affected media, design of the storm water system, and- implementation of
a 1 year groundwater monitoring program.
2.4 GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
EE&G identified the following technically feasible and currently accepted remediation alternatives
for affected groundwater. General response actions for soil are provided in Table 4A. Evaluation
summaries for each alternative are provided in Table 4B.
No Further Action.
No Further Action With Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring.
Active Treatment & Monitoring.
Assessment activities have detected concentrations of dissolved lead in the northeastern portion
of the Property. While concentrations of lead exceed criteria for carcinogenic and non -carcinogenic
compounds, all were below the NASDCs. The site -specific groundwater table is relatively flat, and
there are no potable wells in the area. Furthermore, the use of groundwater in the vicinity as a
drinking water or general use source in the future appears unlikely due to the proximity of the
Property to Biscayne Bay. Therefore, the directional migration of the groundwater and possibility
of.exposure to the public appears to be minimal. 'A description of each of the alternatives evaluated
is summarized below.
2.4.1 No Further Action Alternative
The no further action alternative would allow for natural attenuation of groundwater under the site.
Justification for this alternative includes the following:
No further contribution of COPCs (i.e., lead) is occurring at the site.
The metals -affected soil and ash are not significant sources of dissolved COPCs
in the groundwater above the NASDCs.
This alternative poses no short term environmental effects. Long term environmental effects are
minimal provided that the physical characteristics of the metal -affected media and/or the current
hydrogeologic conditions at the site do not change in such a way as to cause dissolution and/or
migration of COPCs. There are no operation and maintenance costs associated with this
alternative. This alternative provides no reliability without ongoing monitoring and/or groundwater
quality orinstitutional and/or engineering controls to ensure no uncontrolled potable usage of
groundwater underlying the site. This alternative, by itself, may not be protective of human health
or the environment, and is therefore less acceptable from a feasibility standpoint, unless
implemented in conjunction with a groundwater quality monitoring or institutional and/or engineering
controls to ensure no human exposure to the area groundwater. This alternative does not provide
for the clean up of dissolved COPCs. There are no costs associated with this alternative.
2-10
00- 09
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
2.4.2 No Further Action with Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring Alternative
The no further action, coupled with institutional/engineering controls and monitoring alternative
would result in the implementation of the following actions:
Establishment of site procedures to prevent direct exposure to groundwater without
appropriate health and safety measures in areas of the site where impacts have
been 'identified.
Implementation of title/deed restrictions prohibiting potable water usage at the site
which may affect the COPCs at the site.
Generation and implementation of a groundwater monitoring program to ensure that
the metals are not increasing and/or migrating. The program would include
quarterly monitoring of designated existing monitoring wells on the Property.
Justification for this alternative is as follows:
No further contribution of COPCs is occurring at the site.
The metal -affected media are not significant sources of dissolved COPCs.
The COPCs will not significaptly migrate due to the physical characteristics of the
metals under current hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
This alternative poses no short term environmental effects. Long term environmental effects are
minimal provided that the physical characteristics of the metal -affected media and/or the current
hydrogeologic conditions at the site do not change in such a way as to cause dissolution and/or
migration of COPCs. Operation and maintenance costs are associated with the implementation
of a quarterly groundwater monitoring program. This alternative is technically and economically
feasible and provides reliability for monitoring of groundwater quality. This alternative is protective
of human health and the environment, and is acceptable from a feasibility standpoint when
implemented with institutional/engineering controls.
Costs associated with this alternative would be approximately $30,000, including the development
and implementation of a 1 year groundwater monitoring program. This alternative has been
considered in conjunction with. all soil remediation alternatives considered in Section 2.3, with the
exception of No Further Action.
2.4.3 Active Groundwater Treatment & Monitoring
Based on the fact that the dissolved concentrations of COPCs in the immediate vicinity of the
metal -affected media are below the NASDCs, and based on the fact that the metals impact is
limited to the Property and does not possess a great potential for migration, EE&G does not
consider groundwater treatment a feasible remedial alternative. By selecting an alternative of
limited containment or institutional controls to address the COPCs, it is likely that the dissolved
constituents detected in monitoring wells will likely be reduced. Furthermore, without the removal
of the metal -affected media, groundwater, treatment activities may only cause the situation to
0
•
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
become worse, by possibly mobilizing the metals or disturbing the apparent steady-state conditions
that have allowed natural attenuation processes to "remediate" the COPCs detected in the
groundwater.
Costs for all remedial alternatives are contained in Appendix A.
2-12 00- U`0
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
SECTION 3.0
SELECTION OF A REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
The selection of a preferred remedial alternative was conducted by evaluating the physical and
chemical characteristics of the identified constituents, the Property's geographic setting,
topography, structural features and proposed future use. Based on the previously discussed
alternatives evaluation (Section 2), the following remedial alternative has been recommended for
the Property:
Capping with Institutional/Engineering Controls and Monitoring. This alternative
would result in the implementation of the following actions:
Establishment of site procedures to minimize the potential for direct
exposure to metal -affected soil without appropriate health and safety
measures in areas of the site where these soils were identified.
Implementation of title/deed restrictions prohibiting certain construction
activities at the site; or, if necessary, establishment of proper techniques for
handling and disposal of affected soils.
A prohibition on the use of groundwater for potable or irrigation water for the
Property to minimize migration and exposure pathways.
The metal -affected soil and ash at the Property will be covered by an
impermeable cap (i.e., concrete, asphalt), preventing infiltration of storm
water. Storm water would be routed away from areas where metal -affected
media are present.
Design of a storm water collection and disposal system that will minimize the
potential for the, infiltration of storm water through metal -affected soil and
ash.
— Groundwater monitoring for 1 year. This will be performed to ensure that
the metals do not migrate and the groundwater conditions improve by
natural attenuation.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), Chapter 62-785,
FAC, criteria, will be met eventually for groundwater. The vadose zone soils contain elevated, non-
hazardous levels of metals which pose some leachability concerns. However, the groundwater
shows NFA levels for all COPCs tested, with the exception of dissolved lead, which was below the
NASDC criteria. Capping the Property will prevent the infiltration of storm water through the metal -
affected soil and ash, minimizing off -site migration of metals in the groundwater, and will likely
significantly improve groundwater quality under the Property site with time. Monitoring of the
groundwater quality for 1 year will be used to ensure that the residual metals remain on -site and
groundwater quality improves. This combination of alternatives will provide long-term effectiveness
and permanence.
3-1 00- UUZ
r�
u
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
Retaining the metals -affected media on -site is more desirable than transporting it to a disposal
facility, minimizing potential for long-term disposal liability.
Capping the metals -affected media would cause no short-term effects other than dust and odors
generated during the surface preparation process. This concern would only arise during surficial
disturbance activities over a four week period. Dust control and measures for protection of workers
against dermal contact and dust inhalation would minimize this effect.
The estimated cost for this alternative would be approximately $211,000.
3-2 0 — 2
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
SECTION 4.0
CONCLUSIONS
This feasibility study was prepared to develop and evaluate appropriate alternatives for the
remediation of arsenic, barium and lead -affected soil at the Civic Center Property. The basis for
selection of a remedial alternative was to provide a cost effective, tech nically-implementable
remediation strategy that is protective of human health and the environment, assuming that the
Property will be deemed acceptable as a Brownfields Site under the Brownfields Cleanup Criteria
Rule (Chapter 62-785, FAC)
The Property is currently abandoned. However, in the past it has been developed with residences
and a nursery (located on the northwestern portion of the site from approximately 1949 to the mid-
1980s). The nursery and all residential structures were cleared from the site by 1986. The
Property has remained unused since that time. The Property is bounded to the southeast by a
small residential housing community, to the north by a high-rise residential building, to the northeast
by a canal, and to the east, south and west by major right-of-ways.
During Phase II ESA testing, a layer of non-native ash, with broken glass, charcoal, metal
fragments, and concrete, was observed to have been dumped on the northeast portion of the
Property. Elevated concentrations of total lead, arsenic and barium, likely attributable to this ash
layer, were detected in soil samples collected from the eastern portion of the Property. Horizontal
delineation of the ash layer was achieved to the west and southwest. However, the ash layer
appeared to extend to the northern, northeastern, eastern, and southeastern boundaries of the
Property. Vertical delineation of the ash layer was inferred by visual inspection of soils in the soil
borings. On average, the ash layer was observed to be located at approximately 1 to 4.5 feet BLS.
Based on interpretation of TCLP analyses, the metal concentrations were below the hazardous
waste criteria; therefore, the soil samples collected and tested during the Phase II ESA were
characterized as a non -hazardous waste.
Elevated concentrations of lead above the GCTLs were detected in groundwater samples collected
from monitoring well TMW-2, TWM-3, and TMW-7. However, all concentrations were below the
NASDCs. It is possible that the total lead detected in the groundwater samples may be attributed
to sediment in the samples.
Based on the assessment data, HSWMR's risk evaluation conclusion was:
Sufficient evidence exists to support a proposal for No Further Action with
institutional and/or engineering controls for the Property. ,Engineering controls could
include an impervious cover. Institutional controls could include preclusion of cover
removal and prohibition of unrestricted groundwater use until such time that soil and
groundwater concentrations are no longer a concern. Other restrictions, like
compaction testing, may preclude building directly over the ash/soil material. If
ash/soil must be removed to meet construction guidelines, it will need to be
disposed of properly.
4-1 00 912
•
EE&G: Remedial, Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
Based on the assessment observations and findings, the following types of affected media were
considered for this feasibility study:
• Soil: Metal -impacted soil was encountered from 0 to 6 feet BLS. This soil was
located at or above the groundwater table and therefore was considered to be part
of the vadose zone. This media included the metal -impacted ash was encountered
in layers between 1 and 4.5 feet BLS.
• Groundwater: Low concentration, lead -affected groundwater was detected in the
northeastern area of the Property. However, the lead detected may be a result of
sediment in the groundwater samples.
SOIL/ASH REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
EE&G identified the following technically feasible and currently accepted remediation alternatives
for metal -affected soil and ash.
• No Further Action.
No costs.
Environmentally unfeasible.
• No Further Action with Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring.
- Deed restriction required.
- Storm water management system required.
- Re -surfacing required.
Estimated cost is approximately $87,000.
Financially feasible.
Technically feasible.
Environmentally protective.
• Limited Excavation & Disposal.
Approximately 6,900 tons removed from the 0 to 2 foot interval.
Deed restriction required.
Storm water management system required.
Re -surfacing required.
Estimated cost is approximately $720,000.
Financially unfeasibile.
Technically feasible.
Environmentally protective.
• Complete Excavation & Disposal.
- Approximately 21,800 tons removed from.the 0 to 6 foot interval.
- Estimated cost is approximately $2,030,000.
Financially unfeasible.
Technically feasible.
- Environmentally protective.
4-2 00-- 992
EE&G: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
• Capping with Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring.
Approximately 3,000 tons removed during piling installation.
Deed restrictio❑ required._
- Storm water management system required.
- Re -surfacing required.
- Estimated cost is approximately $211,000.
- Financially feasibile.
- Technically feasible.
- Environmentally protective.
Solidification with Institutional/Engineering Controls &Monitoring.
- Estimated cost is approximately $3,730,000.
- Financially unfeasible.
Technically feasible.
Environmentally protective.
These estimates include costs for the design and permitting of engineering plans for storm water
management system (when needed), and 1 year of groundwater monitoring. However, capital
costs for re -surfacing activities and the construction of the storm water management system are
not included. Furthermore, these costs do not account for the required proper disposal of any
remaining affected soils which may be excavated during development.
Based on an evaluation of the physical and chemical characteristics of the identified constituents,
the Property's geographic setting, topography, structural features and proposed future use, EE&G
recommended the following remedial alternative for the Property, pending regulatory agency
approval:
Capping with Institutional/Engineering Controls and Monitoring.
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES
EE&G identified the following technically feasible and currently accepted remediation alternatives
for affected groundwater.
No Further Action.
No Further Action With Institutional/Engineering Controls & Monitoring.
Active Treatment & Monitoring.
The success of the groundwater quality will depend upon the selected soil remediation option.
Currently the groundwater quality has not been impacted by the COPCs, with the exception of lead.
However, the lead concentrations did not exceed the NASDCs, and therefore, do not require
remediaiton. Selection of the No further action, coupled with institutional/engineering controls and
monitoring alternative would result in a deed restriction on the property, and 1 year of groundwater
monitoring - both of which have been included in a majority of the soil remediation alternatives,
including the recommended Capping with Institutional/Engineering Controls and Monitoring.
4-3
0 0 - 19(
JUN. 9.1999 12:21PM ew
9777
Np.245 P.11/12
e
ATTAOW� 2
References` Cited
f.
W
NW 17TH STREET
LEGEND,
♦ =L uwu LDUTIOT ML IMM KSONTrm
4/2 MT mrm - '� TTTTAL LEAD CUCEP( RATTDM ft/My
BDL BELOW DETECTABLE LEVEL - CMDIaBL 111M
600 -00
EEbG
Evans Emirof 01W
3 Geascia"
49 SL 5h %'K 0. hn
"m. pbr* 131y
(3m) TTAAM
WCT:
BROWNFIELD
CIVIC
CENTER
PROPERTY
1700 NW 14TH AVENUE
IA K F10RIGA
EXTENT OF
LEAD —AFFECTED
SOILS
(4-6 FEET BLS)
Dq lblc WOO 1, IN
D m Br. MWAS
Sods t'�Q
RtR1iDAS
Figure No.
Q
JUN. 9.1999 12:21PM 9777
• N0.245 P.11i12
at t .+vA
A,TTA,CFIIyiB 2
Referenees- Cited
JLN. 9. 1999-12:21PM 9777 ' .._
NO.245 P.12i12
Attachment 2
References Cited
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry). 1988-1997.
Toxicological profiles for chemicals of interest.
EE&G (Evans Environmental & Geosciences, Inc.). 1998. Site assessment
materials for City of Miami -Civic Center Property. October, 1998.
EE&G (Evans . Environmental & Geosciences, Inc.). 1999. Personal
communication regarding the Civic Center Site.
DERM (Department of $14vironmental Resources Management). 1998. Soil
Cleanup Target Levels. for Miami Dade County. Policy Guidance HSW-
003. September 1,1998.
FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection);: 1998. Brownfields
Cleanup Criteria Rule. Chapter 62-785, PAC. July,, 1998. , .
FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 1999. Contaminant
Cleanup Target Levels Rule. Chapter 62-777, FAC: First Workshop Draft.
January 14,1999. '
U.S. EPA.. 1992..Dermal Exposure Assessment - Principles -and Applications.
Interim Report. January,1992.
U.S. EPA. 1999. IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). On-line computer
database.
EEBO: Remedial Altematives Feasibility Study May 1999
4n n92
ESTWATED SOIL VOLUMES
'- CON CIVIC: CENTER PROPERTY
' ;kQ": 0.8 ppm residential
0 to 2 FEET
Area Name Area (sf) Depth (ft)
Volume (cy) Weight (T)
_ 1 24700 2
1830 2379
- 2 46613 2
3453 4489
Total (0-7) 71312.5 sf .
- ?;216;4 FEET
Area Name Area (sf) Depth (ft)
Volume (cy) Weight (T)�;
1 7800 2
578 751
z 2'. 72613 2
.5379 6992
_- "%tai (2-4'). 80412.5 sf
4 to 6 FEET
Area Name Area (sf) Depth (ft)
Volume (cy) Weight (T)
1 2700 2
200 260
2 22500 2
1667 2167
3 49125 2
3639 4731
Total (4-6) 74325 sf
Area 226050 sf
TOTAL TONNAGE (GT 0.8 ppm)
21768 tons
d
I-
7
•
ESTWATED- SOIL VOLUMES
;CON - CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
a -
(Lead
-CrNeft 500 pprn residential
0 to 2 FEET
..,Area Name Area (sf) Depth (ft) Volume (-cy) Weight (T)
17750 2 1315 1709
2 24130 2 1787 2324
TOW (0-24) 41880
2 to 4 FEET
Area Name
Area (so
Depth (ft) Volume (cy)
Weight (T)
11100
2 822
1069
2
22600
2 1674
2176
3
2925
2 217
282
4
6500
2 481
626
5
3750
2 278
361
TOW (24') 46875
4 to 6 FEET
Area Name
Area (sf)
Depth (ft) Volume (cy)
Weight (T)
1
11000
2 815
1059
2-
18650
2 .1381
1796
3
2925
2 217
282
4
7250
2 537
698
TOW-(4-6') 39825
Area 128580 sf
TOTAL TONNAGE (GT 500 ppm)
0
0
ESTRAATED SOIL VOLUMES - LIMITED EXCAVATION
COY - CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
Lead
"
Criteria: 500 ppm residential
0 to 2 FEET
Area Name Area (sf) Depth (ft)
Volume (cy) Weight (T)
1 17750 2
1315 1709
2 24130 2
1787 2324
`"Total (0-7) 41880
Area 41880 sf
TOTAL TONNAGE (GT 500 ppm)
4033 tons
Arwnk
Ck": 0.8 ppm residential
`
0 to 2 FEET
Area Name Area (sf) Depth (ft)
Volume (cy) Weight (T)
' 1 24700 2
1830 2379
2 46613 2
3453 4489
Total (0-2') 71313 sf
Area 71313 sf
7DTAL TONNAGE (GT 0.8 ppm)
6867 tons
i -
•
0
Table 2C
Soil Assessment Laboratory Analysis Results - October 21, 1998
CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
1700 N.W. 14th AVENUE
MIAMI_ Ft nRine
Soil Sample #
Total Arsenic
m /k
TTotal Barium
m /kg
Total Lead
m /kg
SB-14 (0-2')
39
N/A
4500
SB-14 (4-6')
11
NIA
6600
SBA 5 (0-2')
3.3
N/A
29
SB-15 (2-4')
1.2
NIA
BDL
SB-15 (4.6')
1.2
N/A
BDL
SB-16 (0-2')
4.6
NIA
110
SB-16 (24')
6.1
NIA
55
SS-17 (0-2')
BDL
NIA
BDL
SB-17 (24')
0.76
N/A
BDL
SB-18 (0-2')
2.9
N/A
16
SB-18 (2-4')
4.0
NIA
23
SB-19 (0-2')
47
N/A
21
SB-1.9 (2-4')
5.7
N/A
1400
Residential Soil Cleanup Target Levels,
Rule 62-785, (FAC)
0 S
105
500
1\Vlr..
BDL = Below Detectable Limits.'
N/A = Parameter Not Analyzed.
ug/kg = Micrograms per kilogram.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram..
2, Z
TABLE 3A
SOIL GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
CITY OF MIAMI - CIVIC CENTER
Response Action Remedial Technology Process Options Description Comments
No Action - None None No Action Not Applicable - w/o additional
considerations
Institutional Actions Access restrictions Deed restrictions Deed for property to prevent certain construction Potentially applicable
activities onsite, groundwater usage onsite and
in the area
Engineering
None
Design and construct stormwater disposal
Potentially applicable
system which will not impact metal -affected soil
and ash, when property developed
Containment Capping
Construction/placement of
Placement of cover to prevent stormwater
Potentially applicable
impermeable cap over
infiltration through metal -affected soil and ash
.metal -affected soil and
ash
Vertical barriers
Construction/placement of
Placement of concrete grout slurry wall along
Not Applicable
impermeable barrier to cut
north boundary
off metal -affected soil and
'
ash
Excavation and Disposal Excavation
Heavy equipment :
Excavation of clean overburden and excavation
Potentially applicable
excavation
of metals -affected soils and ash (down to
groundwater table), disposal off -site
Disposal
Thermal treatment
Thermal treatment until clean soil
Not Applicable
Class I solid waste landfill
Disposal in a lined landfill
Not preferred - moves waste to
different location
Treatment Solidification/Stabilization
Mixing excavated soil and -
Metals are tied up in cement matrix
Potentially applicable
ash with pozzolanic
cement, onsite placement
•
•
TABLE 3B
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES - METAL -AFFECTED SOIL
CITY OF MIAMI CIVIC CENTER
Evaluation Criteria
No Action
Institutional/Engineering Controls
Capping
Limited
Excavation/Disposal
ExcavationlDisposal Off -Site
Solidification
on 8
Off -Site
Stabilization
Deed restrictions
Engineering
I
Overall Protection of Health
No
Moderate
Minimal
Moderate - Helps contain
Moderate - removes some
Hi
High -removes so urce
-
High immmuudizes
source to Property
of source
source
I
Compliance with ARARs
No
Possibly with time
1
Possibly with time.
Likely to meet groundwater
Likely to meet groundwater
Likely to meet groundwater
Likely to meet
groundwater ARA
ARARs on -site with time
ARARs with time
ARARs with time
With time
Long Term Effectiveness
No
Yes - minimizes
Yes - minimizes
exposure and
Minimal -isolates source,
minimizes leachate
Moderate - removes source,
eliminates exposure and
High - removes source,
eliminates exposure and
High ewnurates '
exposure
migration
g
production and migration
migration, potential long
migration, potential longterm
source ano exposure
term disposal liability
disposal liability
i
Short Term Effects
None
None
None
Construction, dust, odors
Construction, dust, odors
Construction, dust, odors
ConsuucuGn au51
Goofs
I
High - disposed soils to be
High - disposed soils to be
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility and
No
No
No
Minimal - Some excavated
placed into secure facility,
placed into secure facility,
High - reduces mobility
Volume Through Treatment
soils may be disposed off -site
minimizing potential to affect
minimizing potential to affect
of the source
humans or environment
humans or environment
i
Implementability
None Required
Easy
Easy
Easy - Proven Technology
Easy - Proven Technology
Easy - Proven Technology
Easy PrG�en
Technology
Cost
$0
$60,000
$40,000
$211,000
$720,000
$2,030,000
53.730 JJJ
Unlikely - w/out
-- — -- State -Acceptance
additional
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Possibly
considerations
Unlikely - w/out
Community Acceptance
additional
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Poss uty
considerations
Unlikely - w/out
EE&G Recommendation
additional
Applicable
Applicable
Not Recommended - cost
Applicable
Applicable
Not Recommendea
considerations
cost
i
00— ^qq
TABLE 4A
GROUNDWATER GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
CITY OF MIAMI - CIVIC CENTER
Response Action Remedial Technology Process Options
No Action None None
Institutional Actions
Collection and
Discharge
Containment
Access/Deed restrictions
Engineering
Extraction
Subsurface drains
Onsite discharge
Offsite discharge
Cap
Vertical barriers
Groundwater Treatment Recovery & Treatment
None
None
Description Comments
No Action Not Applicable - w/o additional
considerations
Deed for properties in area would include Potentially applicable
restrictions on wells and construction activities
Construct stormwater disposal system which will Potentially applicable
not increase concentrations of metals in
groundwater or cause its migration, groundwater
monitoring included
Extraction wells
Series of wells to recover treat groundwater
Not applicable
Extraction/injection wells
Series of injection and extraction wells to recover
Not applicable
4nd treat groundwater
Interceptor trenches
Perforated pipe in trenches backfilled with with
Not applicable
porous media to collect and treat groundwater
Infiltration gallery
Extracted water discharged to an onsite infiltration
Not applicable
gallery
Deep well injection
Extracted water injected through an onsite deep .
Not applicable
well
POTW
Extracted water discharged to local POTW
Not applicable
Storm sewer to surface
Extracted water discharged through storm sewer to
Not applicable
water
surface water
Clay and soil
Compacted clay covered with soil over area of
Not applicable
metal -affected soil and ash
Asphalt
Asphalt layer over area of metal -affected soil and
Not applicable
ash
Concrete
Concrete surfacing of metal -affected soil and ash
Not applicable
Slurry wall
Trench along northern boundary for placement of
Not applicable
impermeable cutoff wall (with soil/cement wall)
Grout curtain
Pressure injection of grout in a regular pattern of
Not applicable
drilled holes
Treatment of extracted Recovery well installation, pump testing, modelling. Potentially applicable
groundwater through design and construction of system
counter current packed
tower
r
•
TABLE 46
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES - METAL -AFFECTED GROUNDWATER
CITY OF MIAMI - CIVIC CENTER
Evaluation Criteria
No Action
Institutional/Engineering Controls
Monitoring Only
Groundwater
Treatment
Deed restrictions
Engineering
Overall Protection of Health
No
Moderate
Minimal
Minimal
Moderate
Compliance with ARARs
No
Possibly with time
Possibly with time
Possibly with time
Yes
Long Term Effectiveness
No
Yes minimizes
exposure and migration
Yes - minimizes
exposure, leachate
No
Yes
production and migration
Short Term Effects
None
None
None
None
Construction, Dust,
Odors
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility and
No
No
No
No
Yes
Volume Through Treatment
Fairly Easy -_
Implementability
None Required
Easy
Easy
Easy
Depending Upon
Technology
Cost
$0
$60,000
$40.000
$30,000
> $200.000
State Acceptance
Unlikely - wlout additional
considerations
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Community Acceptance
Unlikely - w/out additional
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
considerations
EESG Recommendation
Unlikely w/out additional
Applicable
Applicable
Applicable
Not Necessary -
Levels Currently
considerations
Below NASDCs
co
4�-
•
•
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
APPENDIX A
RISK ASSESSMENT
00- 092
HSWMR
Hazardous. Substance & Waste Management Research, Inc.
2476 WAIIIIKton C rcle Wes(
Vallahamsee, Hnrida 3'-'10,4
Ptiunc: (850) (A1-6894
1..1X: (850) 900-a777
-nt.4iL .:(,4 ffv�luw cTti:cum
jimuary 27, 1.999
Mr. Craig Clevenger
Evans Environmental & Geoscien.ces, Inc.
Ninety -Nine Southeast Fifth Street
4" Floor
Miami, FL 331.31
Dear Mr. Clevenger:
This letter report was prepared in response to your request that Hazardous
Substance & Waste Management Research (HSWMR) determine current risk
factors related to soil and groundwater at the Civic Center property in Miami,
Florida. The Civic .Center. Site was designated as a Brownfields site by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (ETA), and this analysis is specifically directed
to the question. of whether a No- Further Action (NFA; with or without
institutional and engineering controls) or ,a Monitoring Only with Natural
Attenuation (M'Q/NA) proposal would be appropriate for this Site..
The area of concern at the Civic Center Site is a layer of ash material ranging
from one to four feet in thickness and covering approximately 1.5 acres. The
source of the ashis not known with certainty, but it is believed that it was
brought to the Site many years ago from elsewhere (possibly a former
incineration facility). Within the ash area. (QaLy within the ash area), levels of
arsenic, barium and lead have been reported in excess of the FDEP Brownfields
Rule (Chapter. 62-785, FACT FDEP, 1998) default residential soil cleanup criteria,
and arsenic and lead exceed the default industrial levels. Only lead exceeds the
default groundwater criteria, but the maximum concentration (53 ug/L) is well -
below the Brownfields criteria for natural attenuation (1.50 ug/L). .
This letter report addresses the requirements of the Risk Assessment option of
the Brownfields Rule (62-785.650), The Brownfields Rule recommends that the
following risk assessment tasks be performed, as appropriate:
• Exposure Assessment;
16 Toxicity Assessment;
• Risk Characterization; and,
• Alternative Cleanup Target Levels development, if necessary.
00-- 002
Estiblished 1985
Mr. Craig C1eVC1'gCr
January 27, 1999
Page 2
In addition, Jlie Brownfields Rule, specifies that Conclusions and
Recommendations be drawn which result in one of the following proposals:
• . No Further Action without conditions;
• No Further Action with institutional and/or engineering controls;
• Monitoring Only for Natural Attenuation; or,
Preparation of a Remedial Action Plan.
This letter report, in conjunction with Site assessment information provided by
Evans Environmental & Geosciences, Inc. (EE&G, 1998; EE&G, 1999), provides
sufficient evidence for a proposal of No .Further Action with institutional and
engineering controls for the Civic Center Site.
Exposure Assessment - Soi.l.
Table 1 in. Attachment 1 to this letter report presents a summary of the surface
soil (0-2 feet below land. surface) sampling results that have been reported to
date. Also on Table 1 is a comparison between these results and. the potentially
applicable Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTLs) from the Brownfields Rule (FDEP,
1998). The September. 1., 1998 Miami -Dade County Department of
Environmental Resources Managefaent. (DERM) Policy Guidance HWS-003
(DERM; 1998) echoes the Brownfields SCTLs as appropriate cleanup levels for
Dade County, It should be noted that the SCTLs currently are undergoing
revision, and are being moved into a stand alone Rule, Chapter 62-777, FAC
(FDEP, 1999). The SCTLs in Table 1 have been updated to reflect the planned
changes, Typical surface soil exposures which may be applicable at a particular
site include the following:
unrestricted residential use;
• default industrial use;
• restricted 'industrial use; and,
• intermittent trespassing.
The area of concern on the Civic Center property currently is contiguous to
residential property, and. unrestricted access to the Site likely cannot be
precluded., unless the Site remains undeveloped and is securely fenced. FDEP
and DERM recently have taken the appropriate position that coinstruction worker
exposures to soil (or groundwater) should be addressed by ensuring adherence
to applicable OSHA protocols and requirements for worker protection. This
being the case, a detailed evaluation of exposure scenarios other than the default
Mv. Craig Clevengci,
(aquary 27, 1990
Page 3
residential scenario, and potentially the default industrial scenario are not
defensible.
Regarding subsurface soil, the analytical results indicate that elevated levels of
arsenic, barium and lead also are present in the soil/ash down to approximately
C feet below land surface. Because of the depth of these materials, there is only
limited potential for direct exposure (i.e., construction trenching), and., even if
such an exposure were to occur, FDEP's and DERM's position is that OSHA
guidelines apply. Further, based on the low mobility of the chemicals of interest
and their low potential for leaching, it is unlikely that the subsurface soil/ash
contributes to groundwater contamination in a meaningful way. This is further
supported by the very minor groundwater impacts reported (see next section),
and by the fact that TCLP results were below detectable limits for the highest
reported subsurface lead concentration (193,000 mg/kg).
Exposure Assessment - Groundwater
Table 2 in Attachment 1 presents a summary of selected groundwater analytical
data for the surficial aquifer sampling locations at the Civic Center Site, as well as
a comparison to the Brownfields Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs).
The GCTLs are default, unrestricted' use values that assume 2 L/day drinking
water Exposure for 30 years of a 70 year lifetime. The typical groundwater
exposures which may be applicable at a particular site are the following:
• unrestricted -residential. use (drinking, showering, cooking);
• industrial/process use;
• intermittent/temporary exposure during construction activities (e.g.,
trenching for utilities installation); and;
• irrigation use.
Unrestricted residential and industrial/process uses do not occur at the Site,
because municipal water is supplied to the area, and, such uses are not
anticipated in the future. Regarding potential exposure during construction
activities, as noted above, FDEP and DERM recently have.taken the appropriate
position that connstruction worker exposures to soils or groundwater should be
addressed by ensuring adherence to applicable OSHA protocols and
requirements for worker protection. Because lead, the only chemical of interest
in. groundwater at the Site is not volatile, no inhalation exposure would be
assumed, and, therefore, an irrigation exposure would not pose a- significant risk,
based on potential dermal exposure and incidental. ingestion (typically 0.01
L/day; 1 /200"' of the unrestricted drinking water daily ingestion rate). Further,
lead currently does , not have toxicological guidance. values (e.g., Reference
00- 992
L'V(r. Craig Clevenger
.January 17, 1999
Page 4
[doses) witl.i which to calculate risks in the typical manner. Models are available
for calculating; lead exposure risks, but the nominal concentrations and limited
exposure potential do not warrant the need in this case. It is assumed. that lead
concentrations will. continue to degrade through natural. processes.
Toxicity As5essment
Table 3 in Attachment 1 contains a summary of the available toxicological
guidance values [e.g, Reference Dose (RfDs) and Carcinogenic Slope Factors
(CSFs)] for the chemicals of interest at the Site.
Risk Chasacterixation
As discussed. above, the Site is contiguous to residential property, and
unrestricted access to the Site likely carmot be precluded. Therefore, the
Brownfields default residential and. default industrial SCTLs are reasonable and
appropriate points -of -comparison. As shown on Table 1, considerable
exceedances of the applicable SCTLs exist for arsenic, barium and lead. Thus,
unless the impacted material is removed and disposed, the exposure pathway(s)
should be interrupted through engineered controls, in this case paving,
buildings, or some other form of impervious/semipervi.ous cover.
Alternative Cleanup Target Levels
Because the Exposure Assessment suggests that the default residential and
industrial SCTLs are appropriate for evaluation of the Site, Alternative Cleanup
Ta.rgot Levels were not developed in t-us letter report.
ConglUsi ns and Recommendations
The, final recommendation for the Civic Center Site is No Further Action with
Engineering Controls (e.g., impervious cover). Institutional controls (e.g., deed
restrictions to preclude removal of the cover and to prohibit unrestricted
groundwater use also could be employed until such time that soil and
groundwater concentrations are no longer a concern. It should be noted that
other restrictions (e.g., compaction testing) -may preclude builduzg directly over
0 0 � 0092 , .
Mr. Craig Clevenger
ja n uary 27, 1999
Page 5
the soil/ash material. If removal of some or all of the soil/ash material is
required due to construction guidelines, it will need to be disposed, of properly.
A list of references th.at are cited in this letter is provided in Attachment 2. Once
you have had a chance to review these materials, please call me at (850) 681-6894
so that we ihay discuss any additional questions that you may have.
Si.ner ly,
Christopher Teaf, Ph.D.
President & Director. of Toxicology
CMT/dc
Attachments
009"
ATTACHMENT 1
Tables
0- 909
Table 1
Analytes Detected in Surface Soil at the Civic Center Site in Miami, Florida
Identified as
Maximum
62-785 FAC
62-785 FAC
62-785 FAC
Constituent _
Frequency Detected
Direct Exposure
Direct Exposure
Leachability
of Potential
of Concentration
Residential
Commerdatnndustriat
Concentration
Concern?
Aalytes Detected a Detection (mg/kg) a
(mg/kg) b
(mgfw b
(mg/kg) b
(Yes/No)
Organics
4,4-DDD
1 of 3
0.09
A.6
18
4.0
No
4+13DE
1 of 3
0.253
3.3
13
18
No
Metals
Arsenic
8 of 8
33.6
0.8
3.7
29
Yes
Barium
3 of 3
947
110
87,000
1,600
Yes
Cadmium
4 of 6
40
75
1,300
8.0
No
Chromium
8 of 8
61.8.
210
420
38
No c
Lead
11 of 11
4,690
400
920
NF
Yes
Mercury
3 of 3
0.18
3.4 -
26
2.1
No
Silver
3 of 3
6.9
390
9,100
17,
No
Other
FL -PRO
3 of 5
130 {TRPH)
340 Ma"
2,500 9"H)
340.(IR"
No
NF Not found.
a Only those analytes reported above detectable limits (EE&G,1998) in soils from 0-2 feet below land surface are
presented here, all other detects were in deeper soil. Selenium, at 1.4 mg/kg (390 mg/kg residential SCI'L.), 4-6 feet
Wow land surface in 1 of 9 samples, is the only analyte that was not also detected in surface soil.
b As discussed in the text, these values have been updated according to planned revisions to the Florida SCTLs
(FDEP,1999).
c Chromium does not exceed its direct exposure SCIT-s, nor is it present in groundwater in excess of the GCTL (see
Table 2). Therefore, it is not warranted to include it as a COPC based on a slight exceedance of the leachability
SCTL Further, any remedy selected for dealing with the selected COPCs also will be protective of exposures to
chromium. r ,
'rable 2
Analytes Detected. in Groundwater at the Civic Center Site in Miami, Florida
62-785 FAC
Identified as
Maximum
62-785 FAC
Natural Attenuatinn
Constituent
Frequency
Detected
Groundwater
Default Source
of Potential
of
Concentration
CTL
Concentration
Concern?
Analytes Detected a
Detection
(ug/L) a
(ug/L) b
(ug/L) b
(Yes/No)
Metals
Arsenic
1 of 4
20.
50,
500
No
Chromium
1 of 4
40
100 .
1,000
No
Lead
3 of 4
53
15
150
Yes
8 Only those analytes reported above detectable lirni.ts (EE&G, 1998) are presented here.
b As with the SCTLs from, Table 1, these values have been updated according to planned revisions
to the Florida Cle mup Criteria (PDEP, 1999).
1
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, (the "Agreement") is made
and entered into this day of , 2000, (the "Effective Date")
by and between the City ,of Miami, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida,
with offices at 444 S.W. 2 Avenue, Miami, Florida 33130 (the "Seller"), and Metro -
Miami Community Development Corporation, a Florida not -for -profit corporation,
with offices at 2151 S.W. 21 Terrace, Miami, Florida 33145, (the "Purchaser"). The
Parties hereby agree that Seller shall sell and Purchaser shall buy the following
property for the purpose of developing affordable housing in accordance with, and
upon the following terms and conditions:
ARTICLE I
THE PROPERTY
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.
Subject to. the terms and provisions of this Agreement, Seller agrees to sell to
Purchaser, and Purchaser agrees to purchase from Seller, all of the real property
located at 1700 Northwest 14 Avenue, Miami, Florida, more particularly described as,
Tract "B" of VENEGO SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in
Plat Book 117 at Page 20, of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida, together
with all rights, privileges, tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances pertaining
thereto.
ARTICLE H
PURCHASE PRICE
2.1 PURCHASE PRICE AND PAYMENT.
The Purchase price is One Million. One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($1,100,000.00) (the "Purchase Price").
2.2 METHOD OF PAYMENT.
Purchaser shall pay the Purchase Price in the following manner:
(a) Deposit: Within 24 hours of the Effective Date, Purchaser shall deposit
the sum of One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($110,000.00) (the "Deposit") with
("Escrow Agent") to be held in escrow and disbursed
as provided in this Agreement. Escrow Agent shall hold the Deposit in an interest
bearing account with interest accruing to Purchaser,, unless the Deposit is disbursed to
the Seller upon Purchaser's default, as set forth in Section 12.3 hereof. At Closing the
Deposit and all accrued interest shall be credited for the account of Purchaser towards
the Purchase Price. The Deposit is non-refundable except in the event Purchaser
00-92
terminates this Agreement as provided elsewhere in this Agreement. This Agreement
shall serve as the escrow agreement and constitute instructions binding upon the
Escrow Agent, Purchaser and Seller, subject only. to such supplemental instructions as
may be agreed upon by Purchaser and Seller, in writing.
(b) Additional Cash at Closing. At Closing, as defined in Section 9.1,
Purchaser shall pay to Seller the balance of the Purchase Price (increased or decreased
by adjustments, credits, proration, and expenses as set forth in Sections 3.3 and 11.2
or any other provision of this Agreement) in the form of cashier's check, certified
check, official bank check or wire transfer.
ARTICLE III
ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
3.1 DEFINITIONS. -
For purposes of this Agreement:
(a) The term. "Hazardous Materials" shall mean and include without
limitation, any substance which is or contains (A) any "hazardous substance" as now or
hereafter: defined in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C., Section 9601 et seq.) ("CERCLA") or
any regulations promulgated under or pursuant to CERCLA; (B) any "hazardous
waste" as now or hereafter defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42
U.S.C., Section 6901 et seq.); (C) any substance regulated by the Toxic Substances
Control Act (15 U.S;C., Section 2601 et. Seq.); (D) gasoline, diesel fuel, or other
petroleum hydrocarbons; (E) asbestos and asbestos containing materials, in any form,
whether friable or non -friable; (F), polychlorinated biphenyls; and (G) any additional
substances or ' material which: (i) is now or hereafter classified or considered to be
hazardous or toxic under Environmental Requirements as hereinafter defined; (ii)
causes or threatens to cause a nuisance on the Property or adjacent property or poses or
threatens to pose a hazard to the health or safety. of persons on the Property or adjacent
property; or (iii) .would constitute a trespass if it emanated or migrated from the
Property.
(b) The term "Environmental Requirements" shall mean all laws,
ordinances, statutes, codes, rules, regulations, agreements, judgments, orders and
decrees, now or' hereafter enacted, promulgated, or amended of the United States, the
State of Florida, Miami -Dade County, the City of Miami, or any other political
subdivision, agency or instrumentality exercising jurisdiction over the Seller or the
Purchaser, the Property, or the use of the Property, relating to pollurion, the protection
or regulation of human health, natural resources, or the environment, or the emission,
discharge, release or threatened release of pollutants, contaminants, chemicals, or
industrial, toxic 'or hazardous substances or waste or Hazardous Materials into the
992
environment (including, without limitation, ambient air,. surface water, groundwater,
land or soil).
3.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND DISCLAIMER AS TO ENVIRONMENTA
MATTERS.
Purchaser acknowledges receipt of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Report and Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study for the Property prepared by
EUG (collectively the "Environmental Reports"), which is given by Seller to
Purchaser for informational purposes . only, without any representations as to the
accuracy or completeness of such information., Purchaser further acknowledges that
the Property is being sold in "as -is" condition and that upon consummation of purchase
and sale, Purchase will assume all responsibility for all environmental matters and
compliance with all Environmental Requirements. Purchaser acknowledges and agrees
that Seller has not made, 'does not. make and specifically negates and disclaims any
representations, warranties, promises, covenants, agreements or guaranties of any kind
or character whatsoever, whether express or implied, oral or written, (past, present, or
future) of, as to, -concerning or with respect to environmental matters with reference to
the Property, including, but not limited to: (a) the value, nature, quality or condition of
the Property, including, without limitation, the water, soil -and geology, (b), the
compliance of or by the Property, or its operation with. any Environmental
Requirements, (c) any representation's regarding compliance with any environmental
protection, pollution or land use, zoning or development of regional impact laws, rules,
regulations, orders or requirements, including 'the existence in or on the Property of _
Hazardous Materials.
Purchaser further acknowledges and agrees that any information provided or to
be provided with respect to the Property was -obtained from a variety of sources and
that Seller has not made any independent investigation or verification of such
information and makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of such
information but Seller agrees that itwill not intentionally withhold information and
Seller will not knowingly provide any false or misleading information. Seller is not
liable or bound in any matter. by any oral or written statements, representations or
information pertaining to the Property, or the operation thereof, furnished by any
agent, employee, servant or other person.
3.3 PURCHASER INSPECTIONS
(a) General Inspections: Purchaser, its . employees, agents,
consultants and contractors shall have a period of twenty-five (25) days from the
Effective Date (the "Investigation Period") in which to undertake at Purchaser's
expense, such .physical inspections and other investigations of and concerning the
Property including surveys, soil borings, percolation, engineering studies, and other
tests as Purchaser considers necessary for, Purchaser and his consultants to review and
0 0 - 9O1
3
evaluate the physical characteristics of the Property and to perform certain work or
inspections in connection with such evaluation (the "General Inspection") after giving
the Seller, reasonable notice of twenty-four (24) hours prior to each test performed.
The City, at its sole; option, may extend the Investigation Period for an additional
twenty-five (25) days if based upon the results of the testing, additional testing is
warranted. Purchaser shall have the right to terminate this Agreement if it is not
satisfied with the condition of the Property, in Purchaser's sole discretion, by giving
Seller written notice of its election to terminate the Agreement not later than 15 days
after expiration of the inspection period. Failure to give notice as herein provided shall
be conclusive evidence that Purchaser accepts the Property in its existing condition and
the provisions of Section 3.4 below shall apply.
(b) Environmental Inspection: Purchaser shall have a period of
days from the Effectiye Date (the "Environmental Inspection Period") in which
to conduct such environmental inspections .of the Property as it deems necessary (the
"Environmental Inspection").. All inspections shall be performed at Purchaser's sole
cost and expenses. The Environmental Inspection shall be performed by a consultant
selected by Purchaser. Seller has provided Purchaser with all Environmental Reports
in Seller's possession, receipt of which are hereby acknowledged by Purchaser. If the..
Environmental Inspection reveals (i) any violations of any Environmental Laws with
respect to any Hazardous Material present or any environmental activity conducted or
permitted at the Property; (ii) any present or contingent liability which may attach or
be. attributed to a prior owner, lessee, sublessee or operator of the Seller; or (iii) any
significant risk to the health or safety of occupants of the Property arising from any
Hazardous Materials present or environmental activity conducted or permitted at the:
Property (the foregoing conditions are hereinafter referred to as "Environmental _
Conditions"), then Purchaser may elect to terminate the Agreement by giving Seller
written notice of its election to terminate on or before the expiration of the
Environmental Inspection Period or may proceed . by delivering to Seller a Notice of
Environmental Condition, as described below, on or before the expiration of the
Environmental Inspection Period. 'In the event that Purchaser fails to give to Seller a
Notice of Environmental Condition, or a notice of its intent to terminate, on or before
the expiration of the Environmental Inspection Period, then Purchaser shall be deemed
to have accepted the Property in "as -is" condition, and the provisions of Section 3.4
below shall apply.
(c) Remedies: If the Environmental .Insn—
Environmental Condition as defined above, and Purchaser t1-
the Agreement, then the Purchaser may deliver to "
Environmental Condition affecting the Property, toga
Report and an estimate of the cost and time period
Environmental Condition, In such event, Seller agrees
up to Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.06.
exceeds $250,000, and Purchaser elects to proceed to reme
responsible for one-half (1/2) of the additional cost of remed. .
99 4 00999
that the total amount of Seller's contribution toward remediation shall in no event
exceed $500,000. Purchaser understands and. agrees that Seller's contributions toward
remediation shall be in the form of credit(s) towards the payment of the Purchase Price
and not a cash contribution.
(d) Right of Entry, Inspection Indemnity, Insurance and Releases:
Seller hereby grants to Purchaser, its consultants and agents or assigns, full
right of entry upon the Property during the inspection periods set forth in subsections
(a) and (b) above for the . purpose of conducting the General and Environmental
Inspections. The right- of access herein granted shall be exercised and used by
Purchaser, its employees, agents, representatives and contractors in such a manner as
not to cause any ..material damage or destruction of any nature whatsoever to, or
interruption of the use of the Property by the Seller, its employees, officers, agents and
tenants.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this. Agreement to the contrary, as
consideration for -the Seller granting a continuing right of entry, the Purchaser hereby
specifically agrees to: (i) immediately pay or cause to be removed any liens filed
against the Property as a result of any actions taken by or on behalf of Purchaser in
connection with the inspection of the, Property; (ii) immediately repair and restore the.
Property to its condition existing immediately prior to the commencement of the first
inspection period; and OR) indemnify, defend and hold harmless Seller, its employees,
officers and agents, from and against all claims, damages or losses incurred to the
Property, or anyone on the. Property as a result of the actions taken by the Purchaser,
any of its employees, agents, representatives or contractors, or anyone directly or
indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable, with
respect tothe inspection of the Property, regardless of whether or not such claim,
demand, cause of action, damage, liability, loss or expense is caused in part by Seller,
its employees, officers and agents, provided, however, Purchaser shall not be liable for
the gross negligence or intentional misconduct of Seller, its employees, officers and
agents. Nothing herein shall be deemed to abridge the rights, if any, of the Seller to
seek contribution where appropriate.
The provisions of this indemnity shall survive the Closing or the termination of
this Agreement.
Prior' to Purchaser entering upon the Property for purposes of commencement of
the inspection, 'Purchaser shall furnish to Seller the policy or policies of insurance or
certificates of insurance in form and such reasonable amounts approved by the City of
Miami's Risk. Manager protecting the City, during the course of such testing, against
all claims for personal injury and property damage arising out of or related to the
activities undertaken by the Purchaser, its agents, employees, consultants and
contractors, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for
whose acts they may be liable, upon the Property or in connection with the inspections.
AO— 2,..�«
Purchaser hereby waives any and all claims against the Seller for personal
injury or property damage 'sustained by the Purchaser, its employees, agents,
contractors, or consultants arising out of or related to the activities undertaken by the
Purchaser, its agents, employees, consultants and contractors upon the Property or in
connection with the inspections and releases the Seller from any claims in connection
therewith.
3.4 WAIVER AND RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION.
Purchaser ,acknowledges that Purchaser has been given ample opportunity to
inspect the Property, conduct such testing, as Purchaser deems necessary to investigate
the environmental' condition of the Property, and the opportunity to terminate this
Agreement, in its sole discretion. If Purchaser elects to proceed to closing, then
Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that to the maximum extent permitted by law, the
sale of the Property as provided for herein is made on an "AS IS" condition and basis
with all faults.
As additional consideration .for the purchase 'of this Property:
(i) Purchaser hereby covenants and agrees that upon transfer of the
title from the Seller to Purchaser, . Purchaser, on behalf of itself and its
successors and assigns, shall and by execution of this Agreement hereby
waives; releases, acquits, and, forever discharges the Seller, its officials,
employees, agents and independent contractors from and the successors and..
assigns of any of the preceding, of and from any and all claims, actions, causes
of action, demands, liabilities, damages, costs, expenses; or compensation
whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen,
which Purchaser, its successors or assigns now has or which may arise in the
future on account or in any way related to or in connection with any past,
present, or future physical characteristic or condition of the Property including
specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, 'any Hazardous
Materials in, at, on, under or related to the Property, or any violation or
potential violation or any Environmental Requirement applicable thereto. In
addition, Purchaser thereafter specifically waives all current and future claims
and causes of action against Seller arising under CERCLA, RCRA, Chapters
376 and 402, Florida Statutes, and any other federal or state law or county
regulation relating to Hazardous Materials in, on, or under the Property; and
(ii) Purchaser hereby covenants and agrees, on behalf of itself and its
successors and assigns to indemnify and hold harmless the Seller from any and
all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, expenses
or compensation whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or
unforeseen, which are asserted by any third party against the Seller on account
or in any way related to or in connection with any past, present, or future
6 J'r:
physical characteristic or condition of the Property including, without
limitation, any Hazardous Materials in, at, on, under or related to the Property,
or any violation or potential violation or any Environmental Requirement
applicable thereto.
(iii) Purchaser hereby agrees that this indemnity specifically includes
the direct obligation of Purchaser to perform, at its sole cost and expense, any
remedial or other activities required, ordered, recommended or requested by
any agency or governmental official or otherwise necessary to avoid or
minimize injury or liability to any person, or to prevent the spread of pollution,
however it came to be located thereon (hereinafter, the "Remedial Work").
Purchaser- shall perform all such Remedial Work in its own name in accordance
with Environmental Laws.
THE WAIVER, RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS SET
FORTH ABOVE SHALL SURVIVE THE CLOSING.
ARTICLE IV
TITLE SURVEY
4.1 TITLE COMMITMENT. Purchaser, at its sole cost and expense, shall. be
responsible for obtaining all title documents, which Purchaser requires in order to
ascertain the status of title. Purchaser agrees to forward a copy of the aforementioned
title documents to Seller immediately upon Purchaser's receipt thereof.
4.2 SURVEY. Purchaser, at its sole cost and expense, shall be responsible for
obtaining a survey of the Property to ascertain if any encroachments exist.
4.3 OBJECTIONS TO TITLE AND SURVEY. In the event the Purchaser's
examination of title, which examination shall be completed within twenty-five (25) days
of the Effective Date, reflects any condition which renders the title unmarketable in
accordance with the standards of the Florida Bar (the "Title Defect"), the Purchaser
shall allow the Seller ninety (90) calendar days within which to use reasonable
diligence to cure the Title Defect. Seller shall use good faith efforts to cure any Title
Defect, provided however, Seller shall not be required to bring any action or to incur
any expense to cure any Title Defect or objection.
If Seller shall be unable to cure the Title Defect within said cure period,
Purchaser shall have the option of either: (i) closing this transaction in accordance with
the terms and provisions hereof and accepting title in its then existing condition with no
reduction in 'Purchase Price; or (ii) terminating this transaction upon notice to Seller
within fifteen (15) calendar days following the expiration of the cure period,
whereupon the Deposit and all interest earned thereon shall be returned by Escrow
Agent to Purchaser. Upon such refund, this Agreement shall be null and void and,
except for Purchaser's obligations under Section 3.3(d) hereof; the parties hereto shall
0 2
be relieved of all. further obligation and liability, and neither party shall have any
further claims against the other. In the event of cancellation, copies of all abstracts of
title respecting the Property delivered by Seller to Purchaser or prepared by or on
behalf of Purchaser shall be delivered by Purchaser to Seller. If Purchaser shall fail to
terminate this Agreement by giving notice of the same to Seller within fifteen (15) days
following the expiration of the cure period, then it shall be deemed that Purchaser
accepted title in its then existing condition and Purchaser shall proceed to close this
transaction in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof.
ARTICLE V
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT — BROW 0ULDS PROGRAM
5.1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXEMPTION. Purchaser represents and warrants
to the Seller that the Property will be used exclusively. for the development of
affordable housing under a•program authorized under federal, state or local law, which
as of the date of this Agreement has not yet been identified. Seller has relied on
Purchaser's representations in entering into this Agreement pursuant to the provision of
Section 29B of the City of Miami Charter which exempts from the competitive bidding .
requirements established therein a "conveyance or disposition of city -owned property
implementing city -assisted housing programs or projects which are intended to benefit
persons or households with low and/or moderate income by providing housing for such
persons or households, such as, but not limited to, those funded programs or projects
undertaken, pursuant .to the Federal Housing Act of 1937 and the Florida Housing Act
of 1972, as those statutes may be amended or revised from time to time, implementing
city -assisted housing programs as may be authorized by federal or state law, - ..
implementing projects authorized under the Florida Community Redevelopment Act of
1969, and implementing projects of any governmental agency or instrumentality.." (the
"Affordable Housing" exemption).
5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. As an inducement to Seller
to sell the Property to Purchaser under the Affordable Housing exemption, Purchaser
represents that it will develop a maximum of 442 affordable housing units, within the
meaning of the Affordable Housing exemption,- of which 75 % will be sold to
individuals or families who earn 60% or less of the median income as determined by
HUD or other appropriate agency of the federal government. Purchaser agrees to
obtain the building permit within days of Closing and to complete construction of
the improvements within _ months of issuance of a building permit. Issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy shall signify completion of the housing units. Purchaser's
obligations hereunder shall be evidence by a covenant or covenants running with the
land, to be executed at the time of closing.
5.3 BROWNFIEL.DS PROGRAM. Purchaser shall be responsible, at Purchaser's
sole expense, to apply for,. negotiate, execute, and fulfill all of the obligations set forth
in a Brownsfield. Site Rehabilitation Agreement, 'to be entered into by Purchaser and the
appropriate governmental authority for the resolution of any Environmental Condition
8 00- 992COO
.
on the Property. Purchaser must enter into the Brownfield Site Rehabilitation
Agreement, by not later than (the "Expiration Date"). In the
event that the Brownsfield Site Rehabilitation Agreement is not executed on or before
the Expiration Date, then Purchaser and Seller shall each have the right to terminate
this Agreement, by giving the non -cancelling party written notice of its election to
terminate not later than — days after the Expiration Date. Purchaser agrees to
provide to the Seller a plan and a schedule for rehabilitation and redevelopment of the
site and a copy of its contract for architectural and engineering services associated with
the Brownsfield application with a qualified firm by
ARTICLE VI
CONDITIONS
6A CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO CLOSING.' The consummation of the
transaction contemplated hereunder is conditioned upon satisfaction of each of the
following additional conditions at or prior to the closing (or such earlier date as is
specified with respect to .a particularly condition):
(a) Final approval by Seller of Purchaser's development plans.
(b) Purchaser shall provide evidence of funds. for development no later than
ninety (90) days of the Effective Date.
(c) Approval of an acceptable storm water drainage plan by the South
Florida Water Management District. ...
(d) Any other required approval, including an acceptable construction
schedule, required as a result of site or area conditions.
(e) Purchaser may extend the final Closing Date. by sixty (60) days upon
payment of a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) extension fee. Extension
fees are non-refundable and shall not be applied towards the Purchase
Price.
(f) Purchaser shall provide Seller with evidence, as may be reasonably
required by Seller, evidencing Purchaser's commitment to develop the
property as Affordable Housing.
In the event any one or more of the above conditions contained in Section 6.1
are not satisfied at or prior to the Closing (or such earlier date as is specified with
respect to a particular condition), either party, at its sole option, may terminate this
Agreement by written notice to the non -canceling party and immediately upon such
termination the Deposit and all interest accrued thereon shall be returned to Purchaser.
Notwithstanding the above, upon mutual agreement, the parties may reasonably extend
the time for performance of any of the Conditions Precedent.
0- 92
ARTICLE VII
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES
7.1 DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AS TO PROPERTY: "AS IS"
CONVEYANCE.
A. Except as otherwise previously provided in Sections 4, and 7 of
this Agreement, Purchaser is purchasing the Property in an "AS IS" condition
and specifically and expressly without any warranties, representations or
guaranties, either express or implied, of any kind, nature or type whatsoever
from or on behalf of Seller. Without in any way limiting the generality of the
immediately preceding, and in addition to the specific disclaimers set forth in
Section 3 of this Agreement with respect to Environmental Matters, Purchaser
and Seller further acknowledge, and agree that in entering into this Agreement
and purchasing the Property:
(1) Purchaser hereby acknowledges that Seller has not made, will not
and does not make any warranties or representations, whether express or
implied, with respect to the Property, its condition, the value, profitability, or
marketability thereof;
(2) Purchaser acknowledges that with respect to the Property, Seller
has not and will not make any warranties, whether express or implied, of
merchantability, habitability or fitness for a particular use or suitability of the
Property for any and all activities and uses, which Purchaser may conduct
thereon;
(3) Purchaser acknowledges that Seller has not made, will not and
does not make any representations, whether express or implied, with respect to
compliance with any land use, zoning or development of regional impact laws,
rules, regulations, orders or requirements;
(4) Purchaser acknowledges that Purchaser has made and/or shall be
given an adequate opportunity to make such legal, factual and other inquiries
and investigations as Purchaser deems necessary, desirable or appropriate with
respect to the Property, the value or marketability thereof and of the
appurtenances thereto. Such inquiries and investigations of Purchaser shall be
deemed to include, but shall not be limited to, the condition of all portions of
the Property and -such state of facts as an accurate abstract of title would show;
(5) Purchaser acknowledges that Purchaser has not relied, and is not
relying, upon any information, document, projection, proforma, statement,
representation, guaranty or warranty (whether express or implied, or oral or
written or material or immaterial) that may have been given by or made by or
on behalf of Seller.
B. The provisions of this Section shall -survive the Closing.
ARTICLE VIII
RESTRICTIONS
r-WINIFOUI-ft 064091&fflu : Ml"i7�
The Purchaser further agrees, it shall take title subject to: zoning, restrictions,
prohibitions, and other, requirements imposed by governmental authority; restrictions
and matters appearing on the public records, including but not limited to deed
restrictions and reversionary interest and all recorded ; and unrecorded public utility
easements and any matters'that would be disclosed on a survey of the Property.
ARTICLE VEX
CLOSING DATE
9.1 CLOSING DATE.
1
Closing shall take place within thirty (30) days after
at a mutually agreeable time (the "Closing") at the
City of Miami, Office of Asset Management located at 444 SW 2 Avenue, Suite 325,
Miami, Florida. -The parties may, subject to mutual agreement, establish an earlier .
date for Closing.
ARTICLE, X
COVENANTS
10.1 COVENANT TO PAY FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES.
The Purchaser agrees that concurrently with the conveyance of the Property, at
Closing, the Purchaser shall furnish a covenant which will run with the land and shall
be binding on the Purchaser, its successors, heirs and assignees, in favor of the Seller
and enforceable by Seller, to be recorded in the public records of Miami -Dade County.
This covenant shall provide that if the Property, or any portion thereof, is purchased by.
an "immune" or "exempt" entity or is utilized for exempt purposes, that so long as the
City of Miami provides municipal services to the Property the owner of the property
shall pay to the City of Miami an annual payment, which shall never be less than the
amount of taxes that the City of Miami would be entitled to receive' from the Property
based on the fair market value of the Property.
00— 992
J/ d/11
10.2 COVENANT TO RESTRICT USE.
A. The Purchaser agrees that concurrently with the conveyance of
the. Property, at Closing, the Purchaser shall furnish a covenant which will run
with the land and shall be binding on the Purchaser, for itself and its successors
and assigns, shall agree and covenant to use the Property for the development of
affordable housing, as described in Section 5.2 above.
B. The Covenant of Use shall remain in effect for a period of
(� years from the date of conveyance of the Property, and shall be
automatically released at the expiration of such U year period.
C. Purchaser shall be deemed to be in compliance with this
Covenant of Use when complying with the requirements for financing of the
affordable housing development under an affordable housing program.
Purchaser. shall include in any and all mortgage or similar loan documents a
provision .that states the financing institution shall at any time, and from time to
time, so long as this Covenant of, Use shall remain in effect, upon not less than
ten- (10) days . prior written request by Seller, execute, acknowledge and deliver
to Seller, a statement in writing certifying that Purchaser is in compliance with.
its obligations for financing as it relates to the use of the Property for affordable
housing purposes. -
D. - This Covenant of Use shall run with the land until it expires as
provided above, and shall be binding for the benefit of the City and Miami and
shall be enforceable against the Purchaser, its successors or assigns.
10.3 COVENANT TO BUILD..
The Purchaser agrees that concurrently with the conveyance of the Property, at
Closing, the Purchaser shall furnish a covenant which will run with the land and shall
be binding on the Purchaser, its successors, heirs and assignees, in favor of the Seller
and enforceable by Seller, to be recorded in the public records of Miami -Dade County.
This covenant will require a building permit be issued within _ days of Closing and
to complete construction of the improvements within — months of issuance of a
building permit. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall signify completion of the
housing units.
00- Gq9
12
ARTICLE XI
CLOSING DOCUMENTS, COSTS AND ADJUSTMENTS
11.1 CLOSING DOCUMENTS.
A) At Closing, Seller shall execute and/or deliver to Purchaser the
following:
(1) City Deed;
(2) A Closing Statement;
(3) A Seller's Affidavit and a Non -Foreign Affidavit;
(4) Such documents as are necessary toy iitlly authoriz6'the sale of the
Property by Seller and the execution of all Closing documents;
and
(5) Any other documents reasonably necessary or advisable to
consummate the transaction contemplated hereby.
B) Purchaser's Closing Documents: At Closing, Purchaser shall execute
and/or deliver to Seller.the following:
(1) - Closing Statement;
(2) The Covenants described in Article 10 above;
(3) Such documents. as are necessary to fully authorize the purchase
of the Property by Purchaser and the execution of all Closing
documents;
(4) Any other documents reasonably necessary or advisable to
consummate the transaction contemplated hereby; and
(4) Purchaser shall pay to Seller the Purchase Price as provided for
in Section 2 hereof.
11.2 CLOSING COSTS AND ADJUSTMENTS.
At Closing, the following items shall be borne, adjusted, prorated or assumed
by or between Seller and Purchaser as follows:
A. 'Adjustments and Prorations
1) Certified/Pending Liens: Certified, confirmed and ratified
governmental liens as of the Closing Date shall be paid by Seller.
Pending liens as of the Closing Date shall be assumed by
Purchaser.
2) Other Taxes. Expenses. Interest. Etc: Taxes, assessments, water
and sewer charges, waste fee and fire protection charges, if
applicable, shall be prorated.
3) Usual and Customary: Such other items that are usually
and ustomarily pro -rated between purchasers and sellers.. of
properties in the area where the Property is located. All pro -
rations shall utilize the 365-day method.
B. Closing Costs
(1) Each party shall be responsible for its own attorney's fees incurred in
connection with the,Closing.
(2) Purchaser shall pay all other Closing and recording costs incurred in
connection with the sale and purchase of the Property descriibed. in
this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all recording charges,
filing fees payable in connection with the transfer of the Property
hereunder.
ARTICLE XII
TERMNATION AND DEFAULT
12.1 PERMITTED TERMINATION.
If this Agreement is terminated by either party pursuant to a right expressly
given it to do so hereunder (herein referred to as a "Permitted Termination"), the
Deposit and all interest accrued thereon shall immediately be returned to Purchaser and
neither party shall have further rights of obligations hereunder.
12.2 DEFAULT BY SELLER.
If this transaction does not close as a result of default by Seller, Purchaser as
and for its sole and exclusive remedies shall be entitled to: (i) elect to terminate this
Agreement and receive the return of the Deposit and all interest thereon; or (ii) elect to
waive any such conditions or defaults and to consummate the transactions contemplated
by this Agreement in the same manner as if there had been no conditions or defaults
14
' ® ® U Z
and without any reduction in the Purchase Price and without further claim against
Seller.
However, notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, in no
event shall Seller be liable to Purchaser for any actual, punitive, incidental, speculative
or consequential damages, costs or fees of any nature whatsoever. The limitation on
Seller's liability set forth herein shall survive Closing.
If this transaction does not close as a result of default by Purchaser, Seller as
and for its sole and exclusive remedy, shall retain the Deposit and all interest earned
thereon, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty for forfeiture, actual damages being
difficult or impossible to measure.
Neither party shall be entitled to exercise any remedy for a default by the other
party, except failure to timely close, until (i) such party has delivered to the other
notice of the default and (ii) a period of ten (10) calendar days from. and after delivery
of such notice has expired with the other party having failed to cure the default or, if
the default is of a nature that can not be cured within a period of ten (10) days, has
failed to commence and diligently pursue the cure of the default.
12.4 SELLER'S RIGHT TO INFORMATION.
If this Agreement is terminated by any means other than Closing, Purchaser
shall remm all materials received from Seller. Purchaser, at its sole cost and expense,
shall deliver to Seller any surveys, engineering reports and , other documentation
relating to Purchaser's inspection of the Property.
ARTICLE =
RISK OF LOSS
13.1 RISK OF LOSS.
The Purchaser assumes all risk of loss or damage to the Property by Fire or
other casualty, or acts of God, as of the Effective Date.
ARTICLE XIV
RELEASE AND I NDENMIFICATION
14.1 RELEASE AND INDEMNIFICATION.
Purchaser and anyone claiming by, through or under Purchaser hereby fully and
irrevocably release Seller, its employees, officers, directors, representatives, agents,
successors and assigns (collectively the Seller) from any and all claims that it may now
have or hereafter acquire against the Seller for any cost, loss, liability, damage,
expense, demand, action or cause of action arising from or related to any defects,
errors, omissions or other conditions, including, but not limited to; environmental
matters, affecting the Property, or any. portion thereof. The foregoing, however, is not
intended to release Seller from its obligations under this Agreement.
ARTICLE XV
DESIGNATION OF.REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES
Purchaser, and Seller acknowledge .that proper communication between
Purchaser and Seller, is important. Accordingly, to facilitate such communication, the
Purchaser and Seller have ,appointed the following persons on their respective behalves
to be their representatives, 'to wit:
On behalf of Seller:
Laura Billberry
City of Miami
Office of Asset Management
444 SW 2 Avenue, 3`'d Floor
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone (305) 416-1450
Fax (305) 416-2156
15.2 NOTICES..
On behalf of Purchaser.
Tomas E. Diego, President
Metro -Miami Community Development.
Corporation, Inc.
2151 SW 21 Terrace
Miami, FL 33145
Telephone (305) 860-8154
All notices or other communications, which may be given pursuant to this
Agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed properly served if delivered by
personal service or by certified mail addressed to Seller and Purchaser at the address
indicated herein. Such notice shall be deemed given on the day on which personally
served; or if by certified mail, on the fifth day after being posted or the date of actual
receipt, whichever is earlier:
Seller. Purchaser:
Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager
City of Miami
444 SW 2 Avenue, 10'h Floor
Miami, FL 33130
Tomas E. Diego, President
Metro -Miami Community Development
Corporation, Inc.
2151 SW 21 Terrace
Miami, FL 33145
16 90- 99,E
Copies To:
Laura Billberry, Director
Office of Asset Management
City of Miami
444 SW 2 Avenue, 3`d Floor
Miami, FL 33130
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
City Attorney's Office
City of Miami
444 SW 2 Avenue, Suite 945
Miami, FL 33130 ±
Milton J. Wallace, Esq.
1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1720
Miami, Florida 33131
ARTICLE XVI
MISCELLANEOUS
16.1 CAPTIONS AND HEADINGS.
The Section headings or captions appearing in this Agreement - are for
convenience only, are not part of this Agreement, and are not to be considered in .
interpreting this Agreement.
16.2 BINDING EFFECT.
This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and
their successors in interest. Purchaser may assign or pledge this Agreement only with
the prior written consent of the City Manager, which consent, may be withheld for any .
or no reason whatsoever.
16.3 GOVERNING LAW.
This Agreement shall be governed according to the laws of the State of Florida
and venue shall be in Dade County, Florida.
16.4 . COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed to- be an original but all of which shall constitute 'one and the same
Agreement.
99 2
�,,,...
17
If it shall be necessary for either party to this Agreement to bring suit to enforce
any provisions hereof or for damages on account of any breach of this Agreement, the
prevailing party,on any issue in any such litigation and any appeals there from shall be
entitled to recover from the other party, in addition to any damages or other relief
granted as a result of such litigation, all costs and expenses of such litigation and a
reasonable attorneys' fee as fixed by the court.
16.6. WAIVERS.
No waiver by either party of any failure or refusal to comply with its
obligations shall be deemed a waiver of any other or subsequent failure or refusal to
comply. All remedies, rights, undertaking, obligations and agreement contained herein
shall be cumulative and no( mutually exchisive. ,
16.7 SURVIVAL OF REPRESENTATIONS/WARRANTIES.
Article 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of this Agreement shall survive the
Closing and be enforceable by the respective parties until such time as extinguished by
law.
16.8 PARTIAL INVALIDITY.
In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall be unenforceable in.
whole or in part, such provision shall be limited to the extent necessary to render same.-:
valid, or shall be excised from this Agreement, as circumstances require, and this
Agreement shall be construed as if said provision had been incorporated herein as so
limited, or as if said provision had not been included herein, as the case may be.
16.9 WAIVER OF TRIAL BY JURY.
The parties hereby knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally waive any right
they may have to a trial by jury in respect to any litigation arising out of, under or in
connection with this Agreement, or any course of conduct, course of dealing,
statements (whether verbal or written) or actions of any parry hereto. This provision is
a material inducement for Purchaser and Seller entering into this Agreement.
16.10 ENTIRE AGREEMENT.
This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties. There are
no promises, agreements, undertakings, warranties or representations, oral or written,
express or implied, between the parties other than as herein set forth. No amendment
or. modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and
signed by the City Manager on behalf of the Seller and the Purchaser.
/ (t
U ,;
Time is of the. essence of this Agreement and in the performance of all
conditions and covenants to be performed or satisfied by either party hereto. Whenever
a date specified herein shall fall on a Saturday, 'Sunday or legal holiday, the date shall
be extended to, the next succeeding business day.
• N2 V'Sows bIN 0 ZVAV-1.31 • _1 -
The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date on which the last party
to this Agreement executes said Agreement 'and the Agreement has been approved by
the Oversight 'Board.
16.13 AUTHORITY OF CITY MANAGER.
The Resolution of the City Commission of the ' Seller shall, . in . addition to
approving the purchase contemplated under this Agreement, empower the City
Manager of the Seller to modify this Agreement in the event. a modification to this
Agreement becomes necessary or desirable.
16.14 APPROVAL BY THE OVERSIGHT BOARD.
The State of Florida has appointed an Emergency Financial Oversight Board
(the "Oversight Board"), which is empowered.to.review-and approve all pending City.::. .
of Miami contracts. As a result, contracts shall not be binding on the Seller until such
time as they have been approved by the Oversight Board. Attestation of this
Agreement by the City of Miami ' Clerk shall constitute evidence of approval by the
Oversight Board.
19 00- 992
19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
Agreement, as of the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence -of:
ATTEST:
1
Walter J. Foeum
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
ATTEST:
Witness
Print Name
Witness
Print Name
(Ray. 06/ 13100)
1.8:0RS::MV:P4 MCU0-M1&M11.4koc
"SELLER"
Executed by CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal
corporation of the State of Florida
on:
By:
Carlos A. Oimenez, City Manager
By:
Tomas E. Diego, President
20
00- 992.
their responsibilities. What is acceptable and reasonable is that we present to you a
remediation plan for your and DERM approval, which would be paid by the buyer
but deducted from the sale price. This is what was agreed at the November City
Commission meeting, but in no way that should be understood to be an acceptance of
your environmental liabilities.
Rev. Martin N. A$orga This land was purchased by the City of Miami approximately twenty (20) years, ago .,
Chairman with Housing Bond Funds for the development of affordable housing. ' It has laid
vacant spreading 'pollution to surrounding parcels, and has caused blight on the
surrounding neighborhood. The City has poorly maintained the property and has
Presiddeentt TomDiego only been considered by the City as a financial drain.
What we are proposing to the City will turn this property around. This more than.
Cesar Carasa thirty (30) million dollar investment will bring homeownership for 435 new families
Secretary that will pay taxes and support the surrounding businesses, and turn this negative in
the community into the center of its rebirth.
John Ferrer I would hope that you review this matter, so this project can finally et of the
Treasurer P Y P J Y$ ground.
C: Mayor Joe Carollo
Commissioner Wifredo (Willy) Gort
Commissioner Johnny L. Winton
Commissioner Arthur Teele
Commissioner Tomas Regalado
Commissioner Joe Sanchez
Alex Vilarello, City Attorney
Olga Ramirez Cejas, esq.
Laura Bilberry, Director
Genaro "Chip" Iglesias, Ass. City Manager
Milton Wallace, esq.
00' 992
2151 SW 21 Terrace, Miami, Fl. 33145 — Tel: (305) 860-8154
DEVELOP��lEN'I` MEIROo-MLAM����
W
FFICE
rr �� AM10:02
September 21, 2000
v
Carlos Gimenez � 1
City Manager r=
City of Miami -=
444 SW T d Ave.
Rev. Martin N. AAozga
Miami, Florida 33130 3
Ctaimtaut
Re: Civic Center Site Development A
Tom" H. Diego
rrrn
Dear Mr. Manager:
Pneeident
.
Metro Miami CDC has been working for the last two years to develop affordable
Cesar Cara"
homeownership in the Allapattah area. Last November the City Commission
Seaetary
authorized the City to negotiate an agreement for the purchaseof the property at 1700
NW 14*' Avenue. .
John Ferrer
Treast�ret
SALES PRICE. The approved sales price of $1 045 000 based ori'�.':=
appraisal. Staff has since obtained an additional appraisal and has�ra' the price`to" .
$1,100.000.
DEPOSIT: Staff has seta deposit amount of $110,000. This amount was not pa of.: :
the discussion at the commission. If there is a deposit it should be in a minimum
amount perhaps $10600.
DEFAULT: Staff has developed a time line of activities that has nothing to do with
what the commission has approved and some of the items are not within our control,
the developer. The only reason for this time lines is to force a default and remove us
from a controlling interest. The only requirement that the Commission placed in this
deal was that the project be developed within a two-year period after signing
contract.
ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTIONS: The understanding that we had with the
�i City Commission and please check the record is that the Metro Miami CDC would
pay $1,045,000 to the City less any costs associated with clean-up. Your staff is
_ — trying to shortchange this understanding by limiting time period for environmental
_+ -- inspections, limiting the amount that the City would pay for environmental clean-up,
and pass liability of clean-up from the City to the purchaser.
-' The City is responsible for any pollution in the property (legally responsible). Any
attempt to pass that responsibility to the buyer is not supported by State Law and
local governments in principle should not be in the business of trying to shrug off
00— c%
2151 SW 21 TOrmce, Miami, Fl. 33145 — Tel: (305) 860-81 S4
•
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
17.00 Northwest 14 Avenue
Miami, Florida
Tract B
VENEGO SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof as record in Plat Book 117, at
Page 20, of the Public Records of Miami -Dade County, Florida
W4815 n92
"EXHIBIT A"
CUp IIf Aiamt J,
.URA BILLBERRY
Director
OCT 24Tm
Mr. Tomas E. Diego, President
Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation
2151 S.W. 21 Terrace
Miami; Florida 33145
Re: Sale of City -owned Property Located at
1700 N.W.10 Avenue, Miami, Florida
Dear Mr. Diego:
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ
City Manager
We are in receipt of your letter dated September 21, 2000 regarding your concerns related to the
draft copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement sent to you on June 21, 2000 for the purchase of
the above -referenced property. Please be advised of the following:
1. Sales Price: The City Commission under Motion 99-897 authorized and directed the
City Manager to negotiate an agreement with your organization for the purchase : of the
property at "fair market value" requiring the developer to clean up the property and have
a time certain to build. Attached for your convenience is a. copy of the minutes from the
November 16, 1999 Commission meeting. The City had two appraisals done on the
property, which deemed the value of the property to be $1,045,000 and $1,150,000.
Taking an average of the two and rounding off the number staff determined the fair
market value to be $ I.,100,000, which is in line with the City Commission directive.
2. Deposit: The City has historically required a 10% deposit for all sales transactions;
which is in line with customary real estate transactions. It is unreasonable to expect
$100 deposit on a million dollar sale transaction.
3. Default: The timelines established by staff are part of the required negotiation process.
Most of the time frames were left blank iri the agreement, so that you can reasonably
reach an understanding with staff. The document was sent to you in draft form for this
purpose. If you feel you cannot meet certain deadline criteria outlined in the agreement,
we will consider any reasonable alternative schedule you may propose.
QO- 992
OFFICE OF ASSET MANAGEMENT
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 3rd Fioor/Miaml, Florida 3313QK303) 416.143&Fax: 005) 416.2136
Mallinn Address: P.O. Box 33070&Mlaml, Florida 33233.0706
Mr. Tomas E. Diego
Metro -Miami Community Development Corporation
Page -2-
4. Environmental Inspections: Staff left blank the number of days for the inspection
period in order to negotiate with you an agreeable time frame. However, a time frame
must be established since the City Commission requu+od that a time e V
for commencing constchon; on the , ..
environmental conditioh of the property;
agreement was . reached with you regarding the is given for cleanup. 'These ` ... .
clearly defined in section (c) on page 4 of the Purchase and Sale Agreement.
I would suggest that you meet with Ms. Laura Billberry, Director of Asset Management; to
discuss these concerns.. Please note, however, that the administration will be negotiating an
agreement in keeping with the direction of the City Commission and not an alteri ai~ive
arrangement. Ms. Billberry may be reacher at (305) 416-1452.
c: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Dena Bianchino, Assistant City Manager.
Laura Billberry, Director
Office of Asset Management
Olga Ramirez-Cejas, Assistant City Attorney
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
Milton J. Wallace, Esquire
Encl.
0- 992
411. LI_' "
J-00-956
10/24/00
CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 26, 2000
COMMISSIONER TOMAS REGALADO - ITEM # DISTRICT 4[11)
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY. COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT,'IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO
THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH METRO-MIAMI COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ("MMCDC"), A FLORIDA
NOT -FOR PROFIT CORPORATION, TO CONVEY AND
DISPOSE OF CITY -OWNED PARCELS LOCATED AT
1700 NORTHWEST 14TH AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON "EXHIBIT A" ATTACHED
HERETO, CONTINGENT UPON CERTAIN TERMS AND
CONDITIONS; FURTHER DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL OTHER
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR CLOSING ON
SAID PROPERTY, IN A�FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY.
WHEREAS, the property located at 1700 Northwest 14th Avenue,
Miami, Florida, was purchased by the City of Miami ("City") with
Housing Bond Funds approximately twenty years ago for the
development of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Commission's desire to increase
homeownership in the City and to expedite the process of
developing affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Metro-Miami'Community Development Corporation,
a Florida not -for profit corporation, has agreed to pay the fair
� - 4092
•
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby directed and
authorized`) to execute all other necessary documents required
for closing on said property,. in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. -
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of f 2000.
ATTEST:
WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
APPR AS -'
LLC�7ANDRO VI
C Y ATT0
W4815:BSS
Ibid
AND CORRECTNESS:!=
JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR
' If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at
the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted.
If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective
immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission.
Page 3 of 3 4 0 0 - nGV2
NW 17TH STREET
LEGEND:
. ALL UWU LWATM SB-B ALL ➢BmOG K=MTMN
M/S NOT SAMPLED f TLTAL ARtMCi CMCO MATT01 fp/I)
B0. SELBV DETECTABLE LEVEL ` CYAR&OK FOICE
EEbG
Evans Em6eemwcl
at Geos6mm
ss SE 50L %ak "t Paw
mm* %* uui
(xis) n+-M
PROW.
ROWNFIELD
CIVIC
CENTER
PROPERTY
1700 NW 14TH AVENUE
wm, FIM
Sift( HILL:
EXTENT OF
RSENIC—AFFECTE
SOILS
(0-2 FEET BLS)
Job AB.: DJe2uIF3
hem W, N61
OM
Smic V=61
Figure No.
5
w
3
z
C
ND
♦ :mE. >r ., I ou.or
N/S IO'f S Jfto
UDL ELUV DUMT42 E LEVEL
". i/In JlKttl
LE END
Se-R =L NAM DESDDMTI4
TUTAL IIRSEIUC WCEWRATIDI (p/4y
—�-�-. ClMDLM FrNM
r
EEbG
Evans Emironmmtw
& Geasdences
ss SL 51L DEL wE r.
wwi Flbriae au,
(JMI v4-M
ROWN T E!
CIVIC
CENTER
PROPERTY
1700 NW !4TH AWMf
WM, FICODA
4f"Tc 7RL
EXTENT OF
RSENIC—AFFECTE
SOILS
(2-4 FEET BLS)
F
1
7rm.q
sclic
�IS
Figure No.
E
NW 17TH STREET
LEGEND: 1
- =L sMPLE ILCATIDN SD-# SDa it NG =MkArmh
N/S MT SNPLED 't TaTA . ADSEMM M CEM MTIDN 4p/MD)
BDL MlBV KTMIAW.E LEYM ^` `_ D024- K FUtDE
EE&G
Evans Environmental
h Geosciences
99 U Ia
r ssI"
�C+ECf:
BROWNr I= _D
CIVIC
CENTER
PROPERTY
1700 N'N 14TH AVENUE
YM, FLOR!OA
EX"ENT -F
RSENIC-AFF ECTE
SOILS
(4-6 FEET BLS)
-3de you t 199
-lob k: uir-
Figu�No.
a
NW 17TH STREET
LEGENDi
WiA D
SUSPECTED ASH AREA
WBA b
FOMM NRSM AREA
�- O"LDR FEMCE
DWIZW MDNCTGRIM6 WELL
LDCATMN
EEbG
Evom Em omftnw
3 C.WSDMM
sF%t%NKrnPOW
Ifmi Fldda 13131
ROWNFIE10
CIVIC
CENTER
PROPERTY
1700 NW 14TH AVENUE
I MI. ` OMA
I
W17 WILE: i
i
i
i
GROUNDWATER I
ELEVATIONS
i
f
DOIC 1 IQQ
kb No.: Q16=l75 i
Oram Bf AM I
[tt
Scdc
Figure No,
•
•
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Stud
TABLES
May 1999
` Note:
TABLE 1
GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT RESULTS
CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
1700 N.W. 14th AVENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
Well Number
Sample
Date
Lead
(ug/1)
Dissolved
Lead
u /I
Arsenic
(ug/I)
Dissolved
Arsenic
u /I
Chromium
(ug/1)
TMW-1
9/14/98
12.0
N/A
BDL
N/A
BDL
TMW-2
9/14/98
46.0
N/A
20.0
N/A
40.0
TMW-3
9114/98
53.0
N/A
BDL
N/A
BDL
TMW-4
9/14198
BDL
N/A
BDL
N/A
BDL
EQ-1
9114/98
BDL
N/A
BDL
N/A
BDL
TMW-1
10/23/98
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
N/A
TMW-2
10/23/98
5.2
BDL
11.0
BDL
N/A
TMW-3
10/23/98
5.6
BDL
BDL
BDL
N/A
TMW-5
10/23/98
BDL
BDL
17.0
11.0
N/A
TMW-6
10/23/98
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
N/A
TMW-7
10/23/98
17.0
14.0
13.0
BDL
N/A
TMW-8
10/23/98
13.0
5.2
BDL
BDL
N/A
EQUIPMENT
BLANK
10/23/98
BDL
N/A
BDL
N/A
N/A
DUPLICATE 1
of TMW-2
10/23/98
10/23/98
11.0
N/A
11.0
N/A
N/A
DUPLICATE 2
of TMW-3
10/23/98
10/23/98
6.4
N/A
BDL
N/A
N/A
NA Criteria
150
150
5000
5000
1000
GCTL Criteria
15.0
15.0
50.0
50.0
100
BDL = Below Detectable Limits.
NA = Natural Attenuation Default Source Concentrations - per Chapter 62-785, FAC.
GCTL = Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels - per Chapter 62-785, FAC
ug/I = Micrograms per liter.
N/A = Parameter Not Analyzed
00- 0 22
Table 2A
Soil Assessment Laboratory Analysis Results - July 21, 1998
CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
1700 N.W. 14th AVENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
Soil Sample #
Chlorinated
Chlorinated
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total Lead
Total
Total
Total
FL -PRO
Pesticides
Herbicides
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
mg/kg
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
mglkg
uglkg
uglkg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
[N-1] SB.1(0-2')
90 (4,4-DDD)
BDL
N/A
N/A
3.9
N/A
2580
N/A
N/A
N/A
60
255 (4,4-DDE)
(N-2] SB-1(4-6')
BDL
BDL
NIA
N/A
1.5
N/A
7910
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
("I SB-2 (0-2')
BDL
BDL
N/A
NIA
BDL
N/A
3.7
NIA
NIA
N/A
50
41 SB-2 (24')
BDL
BDL
N/A
N/A
BDL
N/A
3.1
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
[N-q SB-3 (0-2)
BDL
BDL
NIA
NIA
BDL
N/A
2.1
NIA
NIA
NIA
BDL
[N-6] SB-3 (4-6')
BDL
BDL
NIA
NIA
BDL
NIA
1.6
NIA
NIA
NIA
NIA
[A-1] SBA (0-2')
NIA
N/A
29.2
1630
1.6
47.0
950
BDL
BDL
10.4
BDL
[A-2] SB4 (4-8')
N/A
NIA
33.6
720
3.9
40.4
4690
0.10
BDL
5.8
130
TCLP=BDL
(A4] SB-5 (0-2')
N/A
N/A
20.9
947
3.7
61.0
1430
0.18
BDL
2.3
NIA
[A-4] SB-5 (24')
NIA
N/A
13.5
623
4.4
44.3
193000
0.30
BDL
9.9
NIA
TCLP=BDL
[A-5] SB-6 (0-2')
NIA
NIA
11.9
904
4.0
61.8
1470
0.14
BDL
6.9
N/A
[A-6] SB-6 (24')
N/A
NIA
9.1
1220
3.8
45.9
1630
0.12
BDL
11.6
NIA
[A-7] SB-7 (24')
NIA
N/A
30.1
1520
7.6
68.0
2860
0.11
BDL
4.7
125
[A-8] SB-7 (4-6')
N/A
N/A
5.1
137
BDL
13.1
56.5
0.13
1.4
BDL
BDL
[A-9] SB-8 (24')
N/A
N/A
24.5
754
3.9
56.1
3970
0.08
BDL
BDL
238
TCLP=0.81
[A-10] SB-8 (4-6')
NIA
NIA
12.6
864
3.0
38.7
8340
0.20
BDL
6.5
BDL
TCLP=0.16
Residential Soil
4600
Cleanup Target
(4,4-DDD)
NOT
0.8
105
75
290
500
3.7
390
390
350
Levels, Rule 62-
3200
APPLICABLE
TCLP=0.015
785, (FAC)
(4,4-DDE)
'Note: BDL = Below Detectable Limits.
uglkg = Micrograms per kilogram.
mglkg = Milligrams per kilogram.
NIA = Parameter Not Analyzed.
TCLP concentrations in milligrams per liter.
Table 2B
Soil Assessment Laboratory Analysis Results - August 31, 1998
CIVIC CENTER PROPERTY
1700 N.W. 14th AVENUE
MIAMI, FLORIDA
Soil Sample #
Total Arsenic
m !k
Total Barium
mg/kgmg/kg
Total Chromium
mg/kg
Total Lead
mg/k
SB-9 (0-2')
5.1
N/A
8.1
110
SB-9 (2-4')
12
N/A
46
1500
SB-10 (0-2')
13
N/A
22
690
SB-10 (2-4')
18
NIA
33
2300
SB-10 (4-6')
1.8
N/A
BDL
BDL
SB-11 (0-2')
.12
MA
34
1000
SB-11 (2-4')
7.0
NIA
170
940
SB-11 (4.6')
0.7
NIA
16
110
SB-12 (0-2')
5.1
N/A
13
130
SB-12 (24')
3.9
N/A
8.8
180
SBA 2 (4-6')
5.2
- N/A
16
470
SB-13 (0-2')
12
NIA
51
2500
SS-13 (2-4')
6.8
NIA
49
2000
SS-13 (4-6')
1.5
N/A
5.0
56
Residential Soil Cleanup
Target Levels, Rule 62-785,
(FAC)
0.8
105
290
500
` Note:
BDL = Below Detectable Limits.
N/A = Parameter Not Analyzed.
ug/kg = Micrograms per kilogram.
mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram..
00- 002.
EEBG: Remedial Alternatives Feasibility Study May 1999
FIGURES
00 - 9�
•
w
x
3
z
NW 17TH STREET
LEGEND
(AREA 11 nMM,ASH AREA
(AREA O EWROt KMERY AREA
�-�--f CHAVUW FENCE
Z66 -00
EEbG
Evans Emimmw tol
k Gooscienca
A S£ 5h Sbnl Qi nes
(vas) 37 -w
9nT M
SITE
DIAGRAM
I
D% Der o9w, .. S4q '
Job 40.: a5ml-,;
new Br. rep
Scdc
ear9os
Figure No.
U
•
NW 17TH STREET N
LEGEND,
- aL fMPLC LOGTOM
sa-N
ML I mfi K=MTOM
4/9 Mar mr m
TOTAL LEAD mMmfMTM N w/1.)
COL CCLOV WM"AILC LCVEL
TCLP-N
TM= OVANCT[MIIATMN LEA04M PRDCEM2
�— CMOLON reNec
mcomtAT®N (%ft)
- i
EEbG
Evans Emironmelat
& Geosciences
A IE VR Sbal W lea
W. rk,* .]N!t
(7a) r, -m
W-C'
3POWNFIELD
CIVIC
CENTER
PROPERTY
1700 NW 14TH AVENUE
IMAq, ELOMA
I sit TME I
EXTENT OF
LEAD —AFFECTED
SOILS
(0-2 FEET BLS)
Figure No.
9
NW 17TH STREET
LEGEND.
son. &MILE LOCATION
SB-e
sm smmw BESTOUTIDN
N/S NOT sAINLM
BOL K OV OETM7ABLE LEVR
TOTAL LEAM alCDmArmw ,/ley
OIAOIOa RMKC
TCLP•/
TM= EWAICTDMTMN LEACHM PeaC£DINC
MCENTMTMN "")
96 -00
EEbG
Evens Emvonmemal
& Gemciences
39 SE 5h 56ee. m Rm
(s6) nL-M
R❑WNF_=LD
CIV.-
CENT=R
PROPERTY
1700 NW 14Tu AVENLE
WANT, (1CK' BA
EXTE7F
LEAD—AFF_CTED
SOILS
<2-4 FEE- BLS;
f ..
Job WA : 0=11,
i rw . A21 Z
Scale
ikiliwt
Figure No.
3
�j
Q
Ln
3
z
•
NW 17TH STREET
LEGEND
SmL SAWLE L(CATMN SS-S SmL Dom DEZDKTUN
N/S NOT :MPL(D 4 TRTAL LEAS CD MWMT1aN C,4 kg)
BELCN D=TAK
S0. E Lr4m
- 6MOIL[MC iEMt
6 00
FFA[;
99SL*�0-�
�. 33131
acnw
BROWNFIELD
CIVIC
CENTER
PROPERTY
1700 NW 14TH AVENUE
IAM, FLORK A
I gam? of 1
EXTENT OF
LEAD -AFFECTED
SOILS
(4-6 FEET BLS)
A k :
O 1lS
Oran .
AR
Soak
Figure No.
d